Report an issue

If you notice some outdated information please let us know!

Sommelier

72%

Process Quality Reviews

Sommelier

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Sommelier

Final score:72%

Date:31 Aug 2023

Audit Process:version 0.8

Author:Rex

PQR Score:72%

PASS

Protocol Website:https://www.sommelier.finance/

Scoring Appendix

The final review score is indicated as a percentage. The percentage is calculated as Achieved Points due to MAX Possible Points. For each element the answer can be either Yes/No or a percentage. For a detailed breakdown of the individual weights of each question, please consult this document.

The blockchain used by this protocol

Ethereum

#QuestionAnswer

97%

1.100%

2.70%

3.Yes

4.100%

5.100

91%

6.Yes

7.Yes

8.100%

9.40%

67%

10.100%

11.50%

12.Yes

13.70%

14.No

15.No

93%

16.100%

17.50%

40%

18.100%

19.50%

20.50%

21.50%

22.50%

23.0%

24.0%

25.0%

50%

26.100

27.No

28.No

Total:72%

Very simply, the audit looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.

Here is my smart contract on the blockchain
You can see it matches a software repository used to develop the code
Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contract does
Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract
Here are the audit(s) performed to review my code by third party experts

This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice of any kind, nor does it constitute an offer to provide investment advisory or other services. Nothing in this report shall be considered a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security, token, future, option or other financial instrument or to offer or provide any investment advice or service to any person in any jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this report constitutes investment advice or offers any opinion with respect to the suitability of any security, and the views expressed in this report should not be taken as advice to buy, sell or hold any security. The information in this report should not be relied upon for the purpose of investing. In preparing the information contained in this report, we have not taken into account the investment needs, objectives and financial circumstances of any particular investor. This information has no regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs of any specific recipient of this information and investments discussed may not be suitable for all investors.

Any views expressed in this report by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. The views expressed within this report are limited to DeFiSafety and the author and do not reflect those of any additional or third party and are strictly based upon DeFiSafety, its authors, interpretations and evaluation of relevant data. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may quickly become unreliable for various reasons, including changes in market conditions or economic circumstances.

This completed report is copyright (c) DeFiSafety 2021. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.

Smart Contracts & Team

97%

This section looks at the code deployed on the relevant chain that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here.

1. Are the smart contract addresses easy to find? (%)

Answer: 100%

They can be found at Smart Contract Addresses in the GitBook, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

Clearly labelled and on website, documents or repository, quick to find

70%

Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking

40%

Addresses in mainnet.json, in discord or sub graph, etc

20%

Address found but labeling not clear or easy to find

Executing addresses could not be found

2. How active is the primary contract? (%)

Answer: 70%

Contract Cellar Factory is used 10 times a week, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

More than 10 transactions a day

70%

More than 10 transactions a week

40%

More than 10 transactions a month

10%

Less than 10 transactions a month

No activity

3. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Location: https://github.com/PeggyJV/cellar-contracts/tree/main

Score Guidance:

Yes

There is a public software repository with the code at a minimum, but also normally test and scripts. Even if the repository was created just to hold the files and has just 1 transaction.

For teams with private repositories.

4. Is there a development history visible? (%)

Answer: 100%

With 862 commits and 29 branches, this is a healthy repo.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

Any one of 100+ commits, 10+branches

70%

Any one of 70+ commits, 7+branches

50%

Any one of 50+ commits, 5+branches

30%

Any one of 30+ commits, 3+branches

Less than 2 branches or less than 30 commits

5. Is the team public (not anonymous)?

Answer: 100

We found more than2 full names of devs on the Github contributors list.

Score Guidance:

100%

At least two names can be easily found in the protocol's website, documentation or medium. These are then confirmed by the personal websites of the individuals / their linkedin / twitter.

50%

At least one public name can be found to be working on the protocol.

No public team members could be found.

Documentation

91%

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.

6. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Location: https://sommelier-finance.gitbook.io/sommelier-documentation/introduction/what-is-sommelier

7. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

This protocol's software architecture is documented in the Protocol (V2) Contract Architecture.

Score Guidance:

Yes

The documents identify software architecture and contract interaction through any of the following: diagrams, arrows, specific reference to software functions or a written explanation on how smart contracts interact.

Protocols receive a "no" if none of these are included.

8. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)

Answer: 100%

There is full coverage of deployed contracts by software function documentation. There are copious Spec compliant comments in the code and top level explanations of variables in the GitBook.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

All contracts and functions documented

80%

Only the major functions documented

79 - 1%

Estimate of the level of software documentation

No software documentation

9. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)

Answer: 40%

There is limited traceability between software documentation and implemented code. The gitbook explanation does not refer to the code much. You have to look at the code directly, which is not traceability.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

Clear explicit traceability between code and documentation at a requirement level for all code

60%

Clear association between code and documents via non explicit traceability

40%

Documentation lists all the functions and describes their functions

No connection between documentation and code

Testing

67%

10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)

Answer: 100%

Code examples are in the Appendix at the end of this report.. As per the [SLOC], there is 163% testing to code (TtC). This score is guided by the Test to Code ratio (TtC). Generally a good test to code ratio is over 100%. However, the reviewer's best judgement is the final deciding factor. TtC = 19756 / 1109 = 163% ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Language Files Lines Blanks Comments Code Complexity ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── JavaScript 62 12109 1796 4999 5314 787 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total 62 12109 1796 4999 5314 787 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Estimated Cost to Develop $156,058 Estimated Schedule Effort 6.789902 months Estimated People Required 2.041928 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Processed 511266 bytes, 0.511 megabytes (SI) ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── C:\Users\Rex\Sync\DeFiSafety\DeFiSafety Common\Products\Processs Quality Reviews\Reviews\0.8\Sommelier\Flattened>cd C:\Users\Rex\Sync\DeFiSafety\DeFiSafety Common\Products\Processs Quality Reviews\Reviews\0.8\Sommelier\TestingEnv C:\Users\Rex\Sync\DeFiSafety\DeFiSafety Common\Products\Processs Quality Reviews\Reviews\0.8\Sommelier\TestingEnv>scc.exe ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Language Files Lines Blanks Comments Code Complexity ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── JavaScript 43 19727 3581 2385 13761 216 YAML 1 29 5 0 24 0 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Total 44 19756 3586 2385 13785 216 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Estimated Cost to Develop $424,592 Estimated Schedule Effort 9.932157 months Estimated People Required 3.797911 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Processed 885603 bytes, 0.886 megabytes (SI) ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

TtC > 120% Both unit and system test visible

80%

TtC > 80% Both unit and system test visible

40%

TtC < 80% Some tests visible

No tests obvious

11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)

Answer: 50%

The Foundry test results do not show code coverage so the default 50% score on the basis of a good test suite.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

Documented full coverage

99 - 51%

Value of test coverage from documented results

50%

No indication of code coverage but clearly there is a complete set of tests

30%

Some tests evident but not complete

No test for coverage seen

12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Scripts/Instructions location: https://github.com/PeggyJV/cellar-contracts

Score Guidance:

Yes

Scripts and/or instructions to run tests are available in the testing suite

Scripts and/or instructions to run tests are not available in the testing suite

13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)

Answer: 70%

The Foundry test outputs give a clear indication that the tests pass. It is not a dedicated test report, but it is close.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

Detailed test report as described below

70%

GitHub code coverage report visible

No test report evident

14. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)

Answer: No

This protocol has not undergone formal verification.

Score Guidance:

Yes

Formal Verification was performed and the report is readily available

Formal Verification was not performed and/or the report is not readily available.

15. Were the smart contracts deployed to a testnet? (Y/N)

Answer: No

There is no evidence of test network deployment.

Score Guidance:

Yes

Protocol has proved their tesnet usage by providing the addresses

Protocol has not proved their testnet usage by providing the addresses

Security

93%

This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 100%

There are multiple audits which have corrections incorporated in the code. It is a bit disturbing that they are finding rather serious problems, but since all are resolved we will not deduct points.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

Multiple Audits performed before deployment and the audit findings are public and implemented or not required

90%

Single audit performed before deployment and audit findings are public and implemented or not required

70%

Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. The Audit report is public.

65%

Code is forked from an already audited protocol and a changelog is provided explaining why forked code was used and what changes were made. This changelog must justify why the changes made do not affect the audit.

50%

Audit(s) performed after deployment and changes are needed but not implemented.

30%

Audit(s) performed are low-quality and do not indicate proper due diligence.

20%

No audit performed

Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public OR smart contract address' not found.

Deduct 25% if the audited code is not available for comparison.

17. Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)

Answer: 50%

This protocol offers an active bug bounty of $50K Score 50% as per guidance.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

Bounty is 10% TVL or at least $1M AND active program (see below)

90%

Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k AND active program

80%

Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k

70%

Bounty is 100k or over AND active program

60%

Bounty is 100k or over

50%

Bounty is 50k or over AND active program

40%

Bounty is 50k or over

20%

Bug bounty program bounty is less than 50k

No bug bounty program offered / the bug bounty program is dead

An active program means that a third party (such as Immunefi) is actively driving hackers to the site. An inactive program would be static mentions on the docs.

Admin Controls

40%

This section covers the documentation of special access controls for a DeFi protocol. The admin access controls are the contracts that allow updating contracts or coefficients in the protocol. Since these contracts can allow the protocol admins to "change the rules", complete disclosure of capabilities is vital for user's transparency. It is explained in this document.

18. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to find?

Answer: 100%

Admin control information was well documented at this location. This was quick to find.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

Admin Controls are clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find

70%

Admin Controls are clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking

40%

Admin Control docs are in multiple places and not well labelled

20%

Admin Control docs are in multiple places and not labelled

Admin Control information could not be found

19. Are relevant contracts clearly labelled as upgradeable or immutable? (%)

Answer: 50%

The relevant contracts are not identified as immutable as identified here. Based on the code, we think each cellar deployment is immutable but the documentation does NOT say so. 50% score as per guidance.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

Both the contract documentation and the smart contract code state that the code is not upgradeable or immutable.

80%

All Contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not)

50%

Code is immutable but not mentioned anywhere in the documentation

Admin control information could not be found

20. Is the type of smart contract ownership clearly indicated? (%)

Answer: 50%

Ownership is not really clearly indicated in this location. . They indicate the power of governance clearly. In the description of "OnlyOwner", it is indicated changes are actually instigated on the Sommelier Cosmos chain that then send the deployment via the Gravity Bridge. So ownership becomes who runs the Steward that deploys to Gravity Bridge. After some digging, it appears functionally to be an EOA, owned by Sommelier. After all this, 50% score.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

The type of ownership is clearly indicated in their documentation. (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / etc)

50%

The type of ownership is indicated, but only in the code. (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / etc)

Admin Control information could not be found

21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)

Answer: 50%

Smart contract change capabilities are changeable via an effective EOA that is not well documented.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

The documentation covers the capabilities for change for all smart contracts

50%

The documentation covers the capabilities for change in some, but not all contracts

The documentation does not cover the capabilities for change in any contract

22. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to understand? (%)

Answer: 50%

This information is described in clear language. It does not really describe it as per an investors funds, so only a 50% score.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

All the contracts are immutable

90%

Description relates to investments safety in clear non-software language

30%

Description all in software-specific language

No admin control information could be found

23. Is there sufficient Pause Control documentation? (%)

Answer: 0%

This protocol's does not appear to have a pause control.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

Pause control(s) are clearly documented and there is records of at least one test within 3 months

80%

Pause control(s) explained clearly but no evidence of regular tests

40%

Pause controls mentioned with no detail on capability or tests

Pause control not documented or explained

24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)

Answer: 0%

This protocol has no timelock documentation. There is a deployed timelock contract, but we don't know where it is used what the delay is.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

Documentation identifies and explains why the protocol does not need a Timelock OR Timelock documentation identifies its duration, which contracts it applies to and justifies this time period.

60%

A Timelock is identified and its duration is specified

30%

A Timelock is identified

No Timelock information was documented

25. Is the Timelock of an adequate length? (Y/N)

Answer: 0%

The timelock is of a unknown relevant length.

Percentage Score Guidance:

100%

Timelock is between 48 hours to 1 week OR justification as to why no Timelock is needed / is outside this length.

50%

Timelock is less than 48 hours or greater than 1 week.

No Timelock information was documented OR no timelock length was identified.

Oracles

50%

This section goes over the documentation that a protocol may or may not supply about their Oracle usage. Oracles are a fundamental part of DeFi as they are responsible for relaying tons of price data information to thousands of protocols using blockchain technology. Not only are they important for price feeds, but they are also an essential component of transaction verification and security. These questions are explained in this document.

26. Is the protocol's Oracle sufficiently documented? (%)

Answer: 100

The protocol's oracle source is well documented at this location. The contracts dependent are identified. There is relevant software function documentation.

Score Guidance:

100%

If it uses one, the Oracle is specified. The contracts dependent on the oracle are identified. Basic software functions are identified (if the protocol provides its own price feed data). Timeframe of price feeds are identified. OR The reason as to why the protocol does not use an Oracle is identified and explained.

75%

The Oracle documentation identifies both source and timeframe, but does not provide additional context regarding smart contracts.

50%

Only the Oracle source is identified.

No oracle is named / no oracle information is documented.

27. Is front running mitigated by this protocol? (Y/N)

Answer: No

This protocol documents don't discuss front running mitigation techniques.

Score Guidance:

Yes

The protocol cannot be front run and there is an explanation as to why OR documented front running countermeasures are implemented.

The Oracle documentation identifies both source and timeframe, but does not provide additional context regarding smart contracts.

28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)

Answer: No

This protocol documents does not discuss flashloan countermeasures.

Score Guidance:

Yes

The protocol's documentation includes information on how they mitigate the possibilities and extents of flash loan attacks.

The protocol's documentation does not include any information regarding the mitigation of flash loan attacks.

Appendices

null

1Enter appendix example code here

N/A