# What is a Competitive Audit?

A smart contract security auditing competition or contest is where security researchers, Hawks, review a smart contract or codebase to identify vulnerabilities, inefficiencies, and potential issues. 

Auditors then submit their findings to be rewarded based on their [validity](/hawks-auditors/how-to-determine-a-finding-validity.md), quality, and [severity](/hawks-auditors/how-to-evaluate-a-finding-severity.md).

{% hint style="info" %}
**Don't want to miss any of our competition announcements?** 

Make sure to follow us on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/CyfrinAudits?s=20) and join our [Discord](https://discord.gg/cyfrin) server!
{% endhint %}

### **How does a Cyfrin CodeHawks auditing competition work?**

Every smart contract auditing competition is comprised of seven periods:

<details>

<summary>1. Competition announcement</summary>

This is the initial phase in which we announce the upcoming competition, detailing the smart contract(s) to be audited.

Learn how to subscribe and submit your first vulnerability following the [quick start guide](/hawks-auditors/quick-start.md).

</details>

<details>

<summary>2. Kick-off </summary>

This is the official start of the competition, and it will last 48 hours. From now on, participants can access the contract repo on the contests page and begin looking for bugs, issues, and vulnerabilities. Findings can be submitted through the contest page on the web portal.

During [the kick-off](#id-2.-kick-off) period, auditors can also raise issues with the codebase, the scope, or any other contest's details.

</details>

<details>

<summary>3. Auditing</summary>

Auditors delve deep into the provided smart contract(s), using their expertise to uncover vulnerabilities, inefficiencies, and other issues and recommendations. In the next phase, these findings are submitted to judges for assessment.

This period is time-bound, ensuring a level playing field.

The time allotted for a competition is determined mainly by the size of the audited code base.

</details>

<details>

<summary>4. Community judging and lead judging</summary>

Once the auditing period concludes, the [community judging](/judging/how-community-judging-works.md) period will start, followed by the lead judging period, during which the Cyfrin CodeHawks team or appointed [judges](/judging/the-judging-process.md) will review the submissions. This will validate the findings, rank them based on severity, and prepare for the appeals phase.

The length of this period is primarily determined by the number of submissions received.

</details>

<details>

<summary>5. Appeals</summary>

For **48 hours** after the initial judging, auditors can raise concerns and [appeals](/hawks-auditors/appeals.md) about the decisions made during the judging phase. This window allows the community to ensure transparency and fairness.

</details>

<details>

<summary>6. Rewards</summary>

After addressing escalations, the final results are announced, and rewards are distributed to auditors based on the quality and significance of their findings.

[Payouts](/hawks-auditors/payouts.md) are distributed within 72 hours of the escalation period's closure and are currently paid in USDC on ZKsync.

</details>

***


---

# Agent Instructions: Querying This Documentation

If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.

Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter:

```
GET https://docs.codehawks.com/hawks-auditors/what-is-an-auditing-competition.md?ask=<question>
```

The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.

Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.