Comment on page

The Judging Process

The judging phase is a critical component of CodeHawks' competitive audits, ensuring the integrity, transparency, and fairness of the contest.
Here's an in-depth look at how the judging process unfolds.


Post-submission Phase: After the closure of a contest's submission window, the judging process starts.
This will be clearly communicated via announcements on Twitter and Discord.
Duration: While the time taken for judging largely depends on the volume of submissions and size of the codebase, it usually takes approximately 1-2 weeks - check the Timelines guide for more information.

The Judging Panel

Current Model: At present, the Cyfrin team is largely responsible for evaluating the audits, on occasion a reputable and esteemed member of the community may be invited to assist in judging.
Future Innovations: We're diligently working towards introducing a decentralized judging model (Community Judging). This model aims to eliminate any potential biases as well as open source the assessments of submitted vulnerabilities.
Participation Restrictions: To ensure impartiality, members of the Cyfrin team are prohibited from participating in audit competitions.

Judging Interactions

Contest Submissions: Once judging begins, further submissions through the CodeHawks Audit Portal will be disabled
Feedback and Comments: Judges will provide detailed comments on each submission, clarifying their decisions and reasonings. These will be revealed for consideration only once the appeals phase begins.
Descriptive Tags: Judges will also be leaving descriptive tags of the finding on each valid submission.

Standards for Validity

Determining the validity of an issue within a specific contest hinges on two primary criteria:
  • Official Contest Specification: Including known issues and specific cases - detailed on each CodeHawks contest's page.
  • Code in Scope: Specific to the contest.
To learn more about what constitutes a valid finding, please refer to the What is a Finding? guide.

Submission Tags

During the judging phase, participants might observe tags being added to their submissions. These tags serve as indicators and can denote various aspects, including:
  • Duplicate Findings: Identified by a sorting bot, for example, ai-dup-1785.
  • Valid Findings: Recognized by tags like finding-reentrancy-borrow-function.
  • Selected Findings: Denoted by the selected tag.

The judging process at CodeHawks is meticulously designed to uphold the highest standards of fairness and clarity. We're continually evolving our methods to reflect the best practices and ensure that every participant receives thorough, unbiased feedback.
For further inquiries or more detailed insights into our processes, please reach out to our dedicated support team or explore other sections of our documentation.