Extract findings from PDF audit reports and convert them to a markdown checklist. Use when the user asks to process an audit report, extract audit findings, or create an audit action items list. (project)
Content & Writing
713 Stars
472 Forks
Updated Jan 8, 2026, 07:11 PM
Why Use This
This skill provides specialized capabilities for Layr-Labs's codebase.
Use Cases
Developing new features in the Layr-Labs repository
Refactoring existing code to follow Layr-Labs standards
Understanding and working with Layr-Labs's codebase structure
---
name: audit-extractor
description: Extract findings from PDF audit reports and convert them to a markdown checklist. Use when the user asks to process an audit report, extract audit findings, or create an audit action items list. (project)
allowed-tools: Read, Write
---
# Audit Extractor
Extract findings from PDF security audit reports and convert them to a structured markdown checklist for tracking remediation.
## Overview
This skill processes PDF audit reports (from firms like Certora, Sigma Prime, Cantina, etc.) and extracts:
- Finding ID (e.g., C-01, H-01, M-01, L-01, I-01)
- Title/Description
- Severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low, Informational)
- Status (Fixed, Partially fixed, Awaiting Fix, Acknowledged, Disregarded, Pending)
- Impact and Likelihood (when available)
- Detailed descriptions and recommendations
## How to Extract Findings
### Step 1: Read the PDF directly
Use the Read tool to read the PDF file. Claude can natively read and understand PDF documents:
```
Read the PDF file at: <pdf_path>
```
### Step 2: Parse the audit content
After reading the PDF, manually extract findings by looking for:
1. **Summary/Findings Table** - Usually contains:
- Finding IDs (patterns like C-01, H-01, M-01, L-01, I-01)
- Titles
- Severity levels
- Status
2. **Detailed Finding Sections** - Usually organized by PR or category, containing:
- Full descriptions
- Code snippets
- Exploit scenarios
- Recommendations
- Customer response / Fix review status
3. **Severity Information** - Look for:
- Impact (High, Medium, Low)
- Likelihood (High, Medium, Low)
### Step 3: Generate the markdown output
Create a markdown file with the following structure:
```markdown
# Audit Findings: [Audit Name]
**Auditor:** [Auditor Name]
**Date:** [Date]
**Status:** [Draft/Final]
**Total findings:** [Count]
## Summary
| Severity | Discovered | Confirmed | Fixed |
|----------|------------|-----------|-------|
| Critical | X | | |
| High | X | | |
| Medium | X | | |
| Low | X | | |
| Informational | X | | |
| **Total** | **X** | | |
## Action Required (X items pending)
- [ ] **M-01** (Medium): [Title]
- [ ] **L-01** (Low): [Title]
---
## All Findings
### ([PR/Category Name])
#### [ID]. [Title]
| Severity | Impact | Likelihood | Status |
|----------|--------|------------|--------|
| [Severity] | [Impact] | [Likelihood] | [Status] |
**Files:** `[filename.sol]`
**Description:** [Full description]
**Recommendation:** [Recommendation text]
---
```
### Step 4: Save the output
Use the Write tool to save the markdown file:
- Save to `audits/[Audit-Name]-Findings.md`
## Output Format Guidelines
### Severity Levels
- **Critical** - Direct loss of funds or complete protocol compromise
- **High** - Significant impact on protocol security or functionality
- **Medium** - Moderate impact, potential for exploitation under certain conditions
- **Low** - Minor issues, best practice violations
- **Informational** - Code quality, gas optimizations, documentation
### Status Values
- **Fixed** - Issue has been resolved
- **Partially fixed** - Issue has been partially addressed
- **Awaiting Fix** - Issue acknowledged, fix pending
- **Acknowledged** - Issue acknowledged, may not be fixed
- **Pending** - Awaiting customer response
- **Disregarded** - Issue will not be fixed (by design)
### Checklist Rules
- Use `[ ]` for unresolved items (Pending, Awaiting Fix, Partially fixed)
- Use `[x]` for resolved items (Fixed, Acknowledged, Disregarded)
## Audit Files Location
Audit reports are typically stored in: `audits/`
## Example Extraction
Given a PDF with findings like:
```
M-01 MigrateSlashers may assign incompatible slasher | Medium | Pending
L-01 Instant slasher setting leaves stale field | Low | Pending
I-01 getSlasher is implemented twice | Informational | Pending
```
Generate:
```markdown
# Audit Findings: EigenLayer - Slashing UX Improvements
**Auditor:** Certora
**Date:** December 2025
**Total findings:** 3
## Summary
| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Medium | 1 |
| Low | 1 |
| Informational | 1 |
## Action Required (2 items)
- [ ] **M-01** (Medium): MigrateSlashers may assign incompatible slasher
- [ ] **L-01** (Low): Instant slasher setting leaves stale field
## All Findings
### Medium (1)
#### M-01. MigrateSlashers may assign an incompatible slasher address
| Severity | Impact | Likelihood | Status |
|----------|--------|------------|--------|
| Medium | High | Low | Pending |
**Description:** [Full description from PDF]
**Recommendation:** [Recommendation from PDF]
---
### Low (1)
#### L-01. Instant slasher setting leaves stale slasher field in storage
| Severity | Impact | Likelihood | Status |
|----------|--------|------------|--------|
| Low | Low | Low | Pending |
**Description:** [Full description from PDF]
**Recommendation:** [Recommendation from PDF]
---
### Informational (1)
#### I-01. getSlasher is implemented twice
| Severity | Status |
|----------|--------|
| Informational | Pending |
**Description:** [Full description from PDF]
**Recommendation:** [Recommendation from PDF]
```
## Troubleshooting
### PDF won't read
- Ensure the file path is correct and the file exists
- Check if the PDF is password protected (not supported)
### Missing findings
- Some PDFs have findings spread across multiple sections
- Check the Table of Contents for finding locations
- Look for "Detailed Findings" or similar sections
### Inconsistent formatting
- Different audit firms use different formats
- Adapt the markdown structure to match the source format
- Preserve all relevant information even if structure differs