TL;DR
This proposal explores adding a proactive smart contract security layer to complement Yearn’s existing testing and audit practices by applying continuous static analysis, unit test generation, mutation testing, and an internal audit agent leveraging deterministic architecture to surface findings and automatically generate bug proof of concepts earlier in development, before audits and deployment.
Summary
Yearn has set a strong standard for smart contract testing and security, with clear guidance around unit testing, fuzzing, invariant testing, and CI pipelines. Vaults and yLockers manage complex strategies and user funds at scale, making early and continuous security validation especially important.
This proposal suggests adding a proactive security layer that runs automatically on every code change to surface vulnerabilities and implementation issues earlier in the SDLC, before progressing to formal audits or deployment. The goal is to reduce noise early, strengthen test suites, and allow downstream review and audits to focus on higher value verification.
Motivation
Yearn documentation emphasizes thorough testing, including unit tests, integration tests, fuzzing, invariant testing, and CI pipelines. These practices reflect a mature security culture and a recognition that security is a continuous process, not a single event.
Formal audits and reviews are most effective when lower level bugs, incorrect assumptions, and implementation noise have already been addressed earlier in development. Automated SDLC tooling helps clear away issues that are not the target of audits or invariant reasoning, allowing later stage security efforts to be more comprehensive and resilient.
Given Yearn’s evolving strategies and frequent upgrades, a layered and shift left security approach fits naturally with the protocol’s emphasis on safe iteration and disciplined engineering.
Problem Statement
While Yearn already benefits from strong testing practices and audits, there remains an opportunity to strengthen security earlier in the development lifecycle:
-
Small or incremental strategy changes can introduce new risk
-
Developers benefit from faster, automated feedback during active development
-
Audits and invariant testing are not optimized to wade through noisy, low level bugs
-
Earlier SDLC tooling enables a layered, shift left security approach
Introducing automated security tooling earlier helps ensure later stage audits and reviews can focus on the semantic properties and invariants that matter most.
How Mature Teams Sequence Security Tooling
Teams operating security at scale tend to follow a layered funnel rather than relying on a single technique:
-
Static analysis to remove obvious and structural flaws early
-
Unit testing and mutation testing to ensure developer intent is exercised
-
Invariant and property testing to validate core protocol assumptions
-
Audit and review to apply human judgment where automated methods fall short
Skipping earlier layers makes downstream techniques slower, more brittle, and more expensive. Proactive SDLC tooling helps narrow the funnel so audits and invariant testing operate on cleaner, higher signal code.
Proposed Approach
Introduce a proactive smart contract security toolkit that integrates directly into existing development workflows and runs automatically on every code change. The approach combines static analysis, automated unit test generation, mutation testing, and an internal audit agent leveraging deterministic architecture to surface findings and automatically generate bug proof of concepts.
The goal is to surface vulnerabilities earlier, strengthen test suites, and increase developer velocity by automating multiple forms of testing during development rather than adding another point in time review.
This model is already in use in other ecosystems, including an active engagement with the Uniswap Foundation, where similar tooling is applied to improve early stage security testing and downstream audit outcomes.
Scope
A practical first step would be a custom demo run against a pre audit commit of already audited Yearn code. This allows the community to evaluate signal quality, benchmark findings against prior audits, and assess usefulness before proceeding to a formal proof of concept.
Potential scope includes:
-
Integration with existing repositories and CI workflows
-
Automated testing on every code change
-
Reporting focused on actionable findings and generated bug proof of concepts
Exact scope and duration would be defined collaboratively.
Relationship to Existing Security Efforts
This proposal is intentionally additive. It does not replace testing, audits, or reviews. It strengthens earlier stages of the SDLC so downstream security processes can operate on cleaner, higher signal code.
Expected Benefits
-
Earlier detection of vulnerabilities during development
-
Stronger and more comprehensive test suites
-
Increased effectiveness of audits and invariant testing through reduced noise
-
Improved developer velocity via automated, continuous testing
Next Steps
If there is interest from the community, the next step would be to run a custom demo on existing Yearn code to demonstrate effectiveness and benchmark results, followed by discussion of a scoped proof of concept.
Happy to answer questions or refine scope based on community feedback.