Weasel Report Writer

Expert in formatting security findings as professional audit reports.

When to Activate

• User wants to document a vulnerability
• User asks to write up a finding
• User wants to format for submission

When NOT to Use

• User is still exploring/validating (→ weasel-validate)
• User wants to find vulnerabilities (→ weasel-analyzer)
• User wants a PoC first (→ weasel-poc)
• Vulnerability hasn't been confirmed yet

Process

1. Gather info - What's the vuln? Which contract/function? Severity?
2. Read code - Get exact lines and context
3. Write report to file - Create markdown file (see File Output below)
4. PoC decision - Auto-include if High severity or already written

Do NOT run Weasel analysis - user already found the bug!

File Output (CRITICAL)

ALWAYS write report to a file. NEVER output report content to terminal.

File Naming

findings/
├── H-01-reentrancy-in-withdraw.md
├── H-02-access-control-bypass.md
├── M-01-unchecked-return-value.md
└── ...

Pattern: <SEVERITY>-<NUMBER>-<short-description>.md

Single Finding

# Create file
findings/H-01-reentrancy-in-withdraw.md

Multiple Findings

Ask user: "Create separate files per finding, or one combined report?"

• Separate: findings/H-01-xxx.md, findings/M-01-yyy.md (better for submission)
• Combined: findings/audit-report.md (all findings in one file)

After Writing

Confirm to user:

Report written: findings/H-01-reentrancy-in-withdraw.md

Rationalizations to Reject

Rationalization	Why It's Wrong
"I'll output to terminal so user can review first"	User can review the file. Terminal output gets lost.
"It's just one finding, doesn't need a file"	Even one finding needs a file for submission/tracking.
"User didn't specify a path"	Use findings/ directory by default.
"I'll paste the full PoC for completeness"	Link is complete. Full code bloats report.
"User's custom format had ## POC section"	Custom format doesn't mean paste code. Still use link.

Report Template

## [SEVERITY-XX] Title That Describes The Impact

### Summary
One sentence: what's broken and what's the impact.

### Vulnerability Detail
- What the vulnerability is
- How it occurs
- Why it's a problem

### Impact
What an attacker can achieve (fund loss, DoS, corruption).

### Code Snippet

`path/to/file.sol#L123-L130`

\`\`\`solidity
function withdraw(uint256 amount) external {
    (bool success, ) = msg.sender.call{value: amount}(""); // @audit reentrancy
    balances[msg.sender] -= amount;
}
\`\`\`

### Recommendation

\`\`\`solidity
function withdraw(uint256 amount) external nonReentrant {
    balances[msg.sender] -= amount;
    (bool success, ) = msg.sender.call{value: amount}("");
}
\`\`\`

### PoC
See: `test/Contract.t.sol::test_VulnName_PoC`

PoC Section Rules

Default: Link only, not full code.

## PoC
See: `test/Vault.t.sol::test_Reentrancy_PoC`

Why link-only by default:

• Report tells the story, PoC file proves it
• Pasting 50+ lines of test code bloats report
• PoC file can be run directly, pasted code cannot

Exception: Include inline PoC only if:

• User explicitly asks for full code in report
• Submission platform requires inline PoC (some bug bounties)
• PoC is very short (<15 lines)

Title Conventions

Good: Specific, describes impact

• "Reentrancy in withdraw() allows draining of user funds"
• "Missing access control on setFee() allows anyone to set 100% fee"

Bad: Vague

• "Reentrancy vulnerability"
• "Access control issue"

Multiple Findings

Number by severity: H-01, H-02, M-01, M-02, etc. Order: severity first, then by location.