by holistis
AI‑powered analysis of Solidity smart contracts that generates security hypotheses, scans repositories via a 7‑gate verification framework, and offers free vulnerability‑pattern statistics.
Bug Bounty Intelligence provides an MCP‑compatible server that scans public Solidity repositories, produces AI‑generated security hypotheses, and supplies free vulnerability‑pattern acceptance rates derived from reconciled Sherlock audit findings.
npx -y bug-bounty-intelligence-mcp@latest
list_vulnerability_patterns – free lookup of pattern acceptance rates.scan_contract – paid scan of a GitHub repository (5 USDC) or a quick 15‑hypothesis scan (1 USDC).get_scan_report – poll for and retrieve the final report.scan_contract call to start the analysis.vulnerability-acceptance-rates.json) covering 1,032 exact‑reconciled Sherlock findings.Q: What does the free list_vulnerability_patterns tool return?
A: It provides acceptance‑rate statistics for vulnerability patterns (e.g., oracle‑manipulation, liquidation) based on 1,032 reconciled Sherlock findings.
Q: How many hypotheses are returned in a full scan? A: Up to 30 hypotheses, split into 15 high‑confidence and 15 lower‑confidence items.
Q: Does the paid scan run the 7‑gate filter? A: No. The filter was removed because it suppressed real bugs; the scan returns raw hypotheses with a confidence ≥ 0.4.
Q: What blockchain network is used for payment? A: Base mainnet (eip155:8453) via the x402 payment protocol, using USDC (6‑decimal token).
Q: Can I run the server locally without paying?
A: Yes. The free dataset and pattern‑search tools (list_vulnerability_patterns) operate offline; the paid scan requires payment.
Q: How is the scan’s coverage limited? A: The model receives at most ~22 k characters from up to 60 Solidity files, excluding tests, mocks, scripts, interfaces, and vendored libraries.
Q: Where can I verify the signed offer?
A: Use npx -y agent-receipt-verify https://x402.tokenizen.nl/api/bug-intel to confirm the signature and offer details.
Q: What should I do if the scan fails?
A: Contact info@holistischadviseur.nl with the job ID for a retry or refund, as outlined in the service terms.
AI-powered smart contract security analysis for AI agents and developers.
Every public statement of ours that turned out wrong is listed, with the date and the fix, in ERRATA.md. The counting rule behind our results is MEASUREMENT-RULE-two-judge-strict.md.
We ran Slither 0.11.6 and Aderyn 0.6.8 with default settings on the same contests and had the same two judges compare their output with the known High and Medium findings. They found none: Slither 0 of 34 and Aderyn 0 of 70, on the contests where our setup could run them. On the same contests our scan found 6 of 34 and 10 of 70 in its first 15 hypotheses. Static tools are not built for the business-logic flaws that contests reward, the older contests may be in the training data of the model behind our scan, and the judges are language models, so read it as a description and not as a ranking: results/2026-10-25-free-tools/README.md.
There are now two prices. The quick scan, POST https://x402.tokenizen.nl/api/bug-intel-quick for 1 USDC on Base, returns the 15 hypotheses the model is most confident about. The full scan, POST https://x402.tokenizen.nl/api/bug-intel for 5 USDC, adds 15 more with lower confidence. It is the same engine and the same kind of report. The hit rates we measured (8 of 105 and 5 of 66) are for the first 15 hypotheses, so they are the numbers of the quick scan; the second list is the extra of the full scan. The quick scan costs exactly 1 dollar because the official x402 client refuses payments above 1 dollar per request unless its owner raises the limit, and we checked with a real purchase that an agent with default settings can buy it: results/2026-10-25-v31/quick-scan-purchase/README.md. Both routes sign their offers.
Until today the scan endpoint accepted only a transaction hash from a payment you had made by hand, and it answered 400 to the signed authorization that standard x402 clients send, although its 402 answer said that would work. That is fixed. A standard client (@x402/fetch 2.28.0) bought the scan from a throwaway address, got the receipt in the response, and the six checks on the receipt pass: results/2026-10-25-v31/standard-client-purchase/README.md. It was a self test with our own money, one purchase. One thing a buyer needs to know: the official client refuses payments above 1 dollar per request unless its owner raises the limit, and the scan costs 5 dollars.
We ran the scan once on 9 Code4rena contests from September 2025 to March 2026 (66 known High and Medium findings), with the rule for reading the result written beforehand. The first 15 hypotheses of a report held 5 of the 66 (7.6 percent) and the first 30 held 8 (12.1 percent). That is the same rate as on the 8 Sherlock contests, so by our own rule the result holds on newer contests. It is still a low rate: 58 of the 66 known findings were not in the first 15. Numbers, judgements, the whole lists and the limits: results/2026-10-25-c4-fresh/README.md.
A report can now show up to 30 hypotheses, in two lists: the 15 the model is most confident about and 15 more with lower confidence. On the stored lists the second list held 8 known findings that the first list did not (5 on Sherlock, 3 on Code4rena), at a slightly lower precision. We chose this after seeing the numbers, so it is a product choice and not a pre-registered test.
The paid endpoint now declares the x402 offer-receipt extension and signs its offer. You can check it yourself without paying: npx -y agent-receipt-verify https://x402.tokenizen.nl/api/bug-intel reaches level 2 (asks for payment the way x402 says, declares the extension, and the signature of the offer verifies). The signer is 0xf30b0706E78b3166745E6a2f351992321088058f. That key only signs offers and receipts and holds no funds. The key is bound to the service domain in DNS, the way section 4.5.1 of the offer-receipt specification describes: dig TXT _controllers.x402.tokenizen.nl lists it as a controller (set on 25 October 2026). The address that receives payments is the one in the payment section below.
After a payment the answer to the paid request carries a signed receipt for that payment transaction, in the body as receipt and in the PAYMENT-RESPONSE header (level 3). We have seen this on one real payment, a self test on Base mainnet with 5.1 USDC from the project's own address to the payment address of the service. The receipt, the transaction, the delivered report and a script that checks all of it are in results/2026-10-25-v31/first-real-payment/. Nobody else has used the receipt yet, and the conformance checker still shows level 3 as not measured because it checks without paying. A receipt says that our service saw payment transaction X for this resource. It says nothing about how good the report is.
Paid scans now run on a newer version, V3.1. On the same 8 contests as the sealed run it found 8 of 105 known High and Medium findings (7.6 percent), against 4 for the version before it and 1 for the scan that was in production until the evening of 25 October: results/2026-10-25-v31/README.md. Two things changed at once and those contests are no longer secret, so this is a doubling from a low level and not a proof. 97 of the 105 were still not found. A scan takes about 20 to 45 seconds and costs us 0.02 to 0.15 dollar. The earlier version stays in place as the fallback.
The one run on the sealed set is done, with the rule written before it: results/2026-10-24-sealed/README.md. On 8 contests that nobody here had run anything on, the scan as it runs today found 1 of 105 known High and Medium findings. A newer version, not in production, found 4 of 105. The rule needed at least 5 findings that production does not find, and it found 3, so production stays as it is. The scan still produces hypotheses to review by hand, and it has not been shown to find what a human audit finds.
The defects described below were fixed and the new version is live. What changed: git submodules are fetched when they point to github.com, tests, mocks, scripts, interfaces and vendored libraries are left out, files are ranked by how likely they move funds and sent in at most six parts, every report states how much of the in-scope code was read, a scan without hypotheses is delivered as such and not as a normal report, hypotheses that name files or functions that are not in the code are dropped, and file links inside a repository are never followed. A free precheck at https://x402.tokenizen.nl/api/bug-intel/precheck?repo=owner/name says before you pay whether the scan counts any Solidity in your repository and roughly how much of it will be read.
The measurement of this version was pre-registered before it ran: PREREGISTRATION-v2-2026-10-24.md. The frozen files are in pipeline/v2.
Result, in RESULTS-v2-2026-10-24.md: none of the 40 known High and Medium findings was found, 0 of 31 on the four contests of the first run and 0 of 9 on three new contests, while 29 percent of the in-scope code was read (8 to 100 percent per contest). 15 of the 40 known findings sit in a file that was read, and none of those was found. The scan produces hypotheses to review by hand. It has not been shown to find the issues that audit contests reward.
Reading the production scan code on 24 October 2026 showed that earlier text on this page overstated what the paid scan does. What it does today:
Official source: this repository and the payment address in the payment section below are the only official ones for Bug Bounty Intelligence. If a listing, a reply or a website gives a different payment address, it is not ours. Check the address against the one below before you pay.
Drawn from a corpus of 27,681 submitted findings across 105 Sherlock audit competitions.
Cost: 1 USDC for the quick scan.
Free tool: list_vulnerability_patterns, no payment needed.
list_vulnerability_patterns' acceptance-rate numbers are computed only from the subset where
results could be exactly reconciled against Sherlock's own published outcomes: 1,032 findings
across 10 contests. We'd rather show fewer, verified numbers than a bigger set we can't stand
behind. See METHODOLOGY.md for exactly why, and how to reproduce it.
vulnerability-acceptance-rates.json is the same data
list_vulnerability_patterns serves, as a static file. No API call, no account, no network
dependency at all. Download it, or copy it into your own tool's rule set. CC0 licensed, use it
however you want, credit optional.
curl -sO https://raw.githubusercontent.com/holistis/bug-bounty-intelligence-mcp/main/vulnerability-acceptance-rates.json
If you're building a local-first / offline security scanner and the paid scan_contract tool
below isn't a fit for your project's architecture, this file might still be useful on its own.
3ilm-mcp is a smaller, free-only MCP server built from
the same verified dataset. It has no paid tier at all, just pattern search
(search_vulnerabilities, get_pattern_details, list_patterns). Use this repo
(bug-bounty-intelligence-mcp) if you also want the paid scan_contract scan; use
3ilm-mcp if you only ever wanted the free lookup tools and prefer the lighter package.
Two more tools in the same Al-Mizaan toolkit, for the rest of the workflow: al-mizaan-judge is a local CLI that pressure-tests a candidate finding through the same 7-gate framework before you submit it, and DeFi Signal API exposes the same vuln-search/bug-intel routes as a pay-per-call HTTP API for anyone who wants this outside MCP.
On 3FLabs/grunt (ERC-4626 + Morpho vaults, 218 contracts): Slither reports 27 "High" findings. After analysis: 24 are in lib/solady (out-of-scope dependency with known Slither false positive patterns), and 3 are EIP-712 design patterns. False positive rate: 100%.
In that comparison Bug Bounty Intelligence was pointed at src/ only. The paid scan now leaves out tests, mocks, scripts, interfaces and vendored libraries by rule. It does not run the 7-gate filter.
We also reported a related divide-before-multiply pattern on the same lib/solady code directly to the Slither project: crytic/slither#3039. A maintainer merged a fix for part of it (crytic/slither#3040); see BENCHMARK.md for the honest scope of what that fix does and doesn't cover, we overclaimed in the original report.
Submit a public GitHub repo containing Solidity smart contracts. Receive a report of AI-generated hypotheses, usually within a few minutes, that states how much of the code was read (see the update and the limits at the top of this page).
| Tool | Description | Cost |
|---|---|---|
scan_contract |
Submit repo for security analysis | $5 USDC |
get_scan_report |
Poll status and get report URL | Free |
list_vulnerability_patterns |
Show acceptance rates from exact-reconciled Sherlock contests | Free |
Also listed in PuPu's MCP store as of release v0.1.11 (registration issue).
Add to your claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"bug-bounty-intelligence": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "bug-bounty-intelligence-mcp@latest"]
}
}
}
Or run directly:
npx -y bug-bounty-intelligence-mcp@latest
If scan_contract returns PAYMENT REQUIRED, send exactly $5 USDC on Base to the address shown, then retry. Payment = acceptance of service terms.
x402 info:
The wallet address can change. Always pay the address scan_contract actually returns in its PAYMENT REQUIRED response, not a copy of this README. This document is updated when the address changes, but the live tool response is the source of truth.
> list_vulnerability_patterns({ protocol_type: "LENDING" })
Vulnerability patterns for LENDING protocols (from Sherlock audit findings, exact-reconciled contests only):
oracle-manipulation 36% accepted (131 cases)
liquidation 29% accepted (14 cases)
staleness 49% accepted (174 cases)
rounding 40% accepted (63 cases)
flash-loan 46% accepted (13 cases)
access-control 47% accepted (74 cases)
> scan_contract({ repo_url: "https://github.com/myprotocol/contracts", protocol_type: "LENDING" })
PAYMENT REQUIRED to start the scan.
Amount: 5.00 USDC
Network: Base mainnet (eip155:8453)
Pay to: 0x015Eb036560216B3051339061FF68A207E0fe88f
Asset: USDC — 0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913
After paying, retry scan_contract with the same repo_url.
Real scan of sherlock-audit/2025-03-crestal-network (Derivatives protocol, 29 contracts):
Summary: 0 Critical | 1 High | 0 Medium | 0 Low
Analyzed: 29 contracts | Model: qwen2.5:7b | Duration: 25min
FINDING #1 — HIGH
Title: Owner Can Arbitrarily Set Payment Addresses
File: Blueprint.sol
Functions: setCreateAgentTokenCost, setUpdateCreateAgentTokenCost,
addPaymentAddress, removePaymentAddress
Category: ACCESS
Description:
The owner can arbitrarily set payment addresses and costs without
any external validation or timelock.
Attack path:
An attacker with ownership calls setCreateAgentTokenCost or
addPaymentAddress to modify fees or redirect user payments to
an attacker-controlled wallet.
Impact:
Extremely high costs (griefing) or redirection of user funds.
Recommendation:
Implement a governance mechanism or timelock to restrict fee
and address changes.
Confidence: 0.90 (CONFIRMED by Al-Mizaan validation)
The Al-Mizaan v3 framework defines 7 gates:
This is the framework used for manual review (the al-mizaan-judge CLI). The paid scan does not run it end to end, see the correction at the top of this page.
This is a free, open-source MCP server maintained in my spare time. If it caught something useful before you shipped, tips are welcome and appreciated (never expected):
0xdffcC75a674257be6FE1b5549FE52e8f8a6A3A5A (USDC, Base)
Please log in to share your review and rating for this MCP.
Explore related MCPs that share similar capabilities and solve comparable challenges
by chaitin
A self‑hosted web application firewall and reverse proxy that protects web applications from attacks and exploits by filtering, monitoring, and blocking malicious HTTP/S traffic.
by snyk
Scans installed AI agent components, MCP servers, and skill files for prompt‑injection, tool poisoning, toxic flows, hard‑coded secrets and other supply‑chain risks.
by OpenOSINT
Provides an AI‑driven OSINT workflow that lets users query a natural‑language REPL, CLI, web UI, or MCP server, automatically selecting and chaining 18 reconnaissance tools to collect, pivot, verify, and report public‑source intelligence.
by 2akouwu
Provides deterministic verification of AI‑generated claims against binary artifacts, ensuring every structural or behavioral assertion is grounded in the actual file and preserving verified state across context resets.
by hashgraph-online
Open-source antivirus for AI agents that blocks risky tools, secret exposure, prompt injection, malicious packages, MCP servers, plugins, and skills at runtime.
by safedep
Provides enterprise‑grade open source software supply chain security by scanning source code, dependencies, containers and SBOMs, detecting vulnerabilities and malicious packages, and enforcing policy as code.
by tufantunc
Provides controlled SSH access for LLM agents with command classification, policy‑based authorization, human‑in‑the‑loop approval, and immutable audit logging.
by semgrep
Offers an MCP server that lets LLMs, agents, and IDEs run Semgrep scans to detect security vulnerabilities in source code.
by KeyValueSoftwareSystems
Enables adversary emulation for AI agents, LLM applications, and MCP servers, letting teams test their AI systems against realistic attack scenarios.
{
"mcpServers": {
"bug-bounty-intelligence": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"bug-bounty-intelligence-mcp@latest"
],
"env": {}
}
}
}claude mcp add bug-bounty-intelligence npx -y bug-bounty-intelligence-mcp@latest