In one sentence: If you’re outsourcing a smart contract audit in 2026, insist on deliverables you can compile, rerun, and procure—complete with SBOMs, SLSA provenance, invariant suites, gas baselines, and fix-verification—not just a PDF. This post details exactly what to demand, why it matters (new EVM/ZK risks), and how 7Block Labs packages it so Security and Procurement can ship on time with measurable ROI.

Outsourcing Smart Contract Audits: What to Expect in Deliverables

Audience: Enterprise product, security, and procurement leaders who need SOC 2-aligned, engineering-ready audit outputs—without delaying launch.

Pain — “We paid for an audit and got… a PDF?”

You’ve seen it: a 20–40 page report with severities, a few code snippets, and “recommendations.” What it rarely includes:

Reproducible test harnesses and fuzzing configs (so your team can re-run every finding)
A coverage/assurance envelope (what was actually verified vs. assumed)
A build provenance chain (SLSA) and a dependency SBOM you can attach to your SOC 2 vendor file
EVM upgrade impact analysis (Dencun/Prague changes like MCOPY or transient storage)
ZK circuit checks that quantify constraint coverage and verifier safety

The result is engineering burn and procurement deadlocks. Teams stall on “what exactly did they test,” “how do we re-run it,” and “does this meet our control evidence?” Meanwhile, mainnet windows close.

Concrete example: after Ethereum’s Dencun upgrade, EIP‑1153 added transient storage. It’s cheaper, but if you don’t clear TSTORE at the end of your call, multi-call transactions can misbehave—a real incident in March 2025 (SIR.trading ~$300–355k loss) demonstrates how “gas optimization” became an exploit surface. Your deliverables must explicitly review transient storage usage and include test cases that simulate multi-call transactions. (blog.verichains.io)

Agitation — The downstream risks aren’t hypothetical

Compliance and procurement gaps
- Without a SOC 2-ready artifact set—SBOM (SPDX 3.0), SLSA attestations for the audit build, and SSDF task mapping—Security can’t bless the release. NIST’s SSDF v1.2 draft raises the bar on secure build evidence; audits should help you meet it, not create rework. (prnewswire.com)
Chain upgrade drift
- Solidity 0.8.25+ emits MCOPY; if your target chain/L2 doesn’t support it, runtime operations can revert and freeze funds. Deliverables must include an opcode/network compatibility matrix and failing tests on unsupported networks. (soliditylang.org)
Missed zero-knowledge (ZK) risks
- Teams ship circuits with no constraint coverage metrics, no verifier regression tests, and no documentation on trusted setup or lookup-gate assumptions. Given rapid prover evolution (Boojum to Airbender, new Plonkish design choices), circuit-level assurance belongs in the audit outputs. (zksync.io)
Real money lost while waiting
- 2025 set ugly records: state actors and large-scale service compromises pushed stolen funds into the multi‑billion range, with ByBit’s ~$1.5B theft as a single incident—indicative of the velocity and sophistication of attacks. Audit deliverables that embed monitoring runbooks and upgrade/governance checks are now table stakes. (chainalysis.com)

When your audit doesn’t ship with runnable artifacts, you pay twice—first to “translate” the report into tests, then again when compliance blocks promotion because the evidence is incomplete.

Solution — The 7Block Labs Deliverables Package (what good looks like)

We deliver audits as engineering assets aligned to Enterprise procurement (SOC 2, SSDF) and production operations. Here’s exactly what you should expect—and what we provide by default.

1) Scope lock and reproducibility

Commit freeze: exact Git SHAs, Solidity compiler version(s), optimizer flags, EVM version (“cancun” by default after Dencun), chain IDs targeted. (soliditylang.org)
Reproducible environment: Dockerfile + lockfiles (solc-select/Foundry/Hardhat) to re-run every check.
Network compatibility matrix:
- MCOPY/EIP‑5656 usage and target L1/L2 support
- EIP‑1153 TSTORE/TLOAD usage and clearing discipline
- EIP‑6780 SELFDESTRUCT behavioral notes for upgrade/migration paths. (blog.sigmaprime.io)

Why it matters: you’ll detect non-portable bytecode that could revert after deployment on specific L2s.

2) Threat model and upgrade/governance review

Assets/trust boundaries: custody, admin keys, paused states, external call graph, cross-chain bridges (if any)
Upgradeability analysis (Transparent/UUPS/Beacon), with hard checks:
- Storage layout diffs, selector clashes, authorization paths, and timelock/governance wiring
- OZ Upgrades/Contracts safety validation captured as CI logs and artifacts. (docs.openzeppelin.com)

Why it matters: governance errors and unsafe upgrades cause more damage than “classic” bugs.

3) Property-driven testing and fuzzing (deliverables you can run)

Property suite:
- Scribble annotations for critical invariants and API contracts (e.g., ERC‑4626 previewDeposit/deposit consistency). We include the specs and the generated monitors. (diligence.consensys.io)
Fuzzing campaigns:
- Foundry invariants and Echidna properties with seeds, runtimes, and failing inputs minimized; coverage corpus saved for regression. We also integrate Trail of Bits’ reusable properties (ERC‑20/4626, math). (github.com)
Outputs:
- JSON/raw logs for each violation, gas snapshots, and a “triage deck” referencing code offsets.

Why it matters: properties and invariants are audit intelligence you can maintain long after we’re gone.

4) Static analysis and manual review evidence

Slither outputs (detectors, printers) with “waiver” rationale where applicable; custom detectors for project-specific patterns. (github.com)
Manual review diffs and annotated code segments for logic/MEV risks that tools miss.

Why it matters: your procurement and internal security teams see both tool coverage and expert findings.

5) Gas and performance envelope (for CFO/PM clarity)

Baseline: forge/hardhat gas reports across typical flows; line-item optimizations with projected user cost deltas (EIP‑1559 assumptions documented).
EIP‑1153-specific guidance:
- If transient storage is used, we include reentrancy-safe clearing patterns and explicit multi-call tests that attempt to break locks. Cost benefits and security pitfalls are documented with references. (linkedin.com)

6) ZK circuits addendum (when applicable)

For Circom/Noir/Halo2/Plonkish stacks and zkEVM components:

Circuit stats: constraint/gate counts, lookup usage, copy constraints, “degree,” and per‑circuit proving/verification times.
Coverage: unit and integration tests that exercise witnesses, plus negative tests (invalid witnesses rejected).
Prover assumptions:
- Boojum/Airbender version, GPU/CPU requirements, and security notes on gadgets and fields (e.g., Goldilocks). Migration guidance if the project is moving to Airbender. (docs.zksync.io)
Arithmetization commentary: R1CS vs. Plonkish trade-offs and any transpilation risks (e.g., R1CS→Plonk tools). We cite known results to justify constraint deltas and performance expectations. (eprint.iacr.org)

Why it matters: ZK audits need quantitative circuit evidence, not just prose.

7) Compliance pack for Enterprise procurement

SBOM (SPDX 3.0) for Solidity/Foundry/Hardhat and audit toolchain
SLSA v1.0 Build Track attestation for the audit build (cosign/in‑toto DSSE envelope), plus notes on Source/Dependency tracks roadmap as tooling matures. (openssf.org)
SSDF mapping: where the audit outputs support SP 800‑218r1 practices; evidence pointers so your SOC 2 team can file them. (csrc.nist.gov)

Why it matters: you attach these to your SOC 2 Type II and vendor risk files, avoiding another review cycle. (aicpa-cima.com)

8) Monitoring and incident readiness

Runbooks for:
- On-chain monitors (privileged function calls, upgrade events), kill-switch/timelock procedures, pause/unpause playbooks
Optional integration notes for Defender monitors/actions so your SecOps can wire alerts day one. (docs.openzeppelin.com)

9) Report you can execute—not just read

Executive summary for leadership (risk themes, go/no‑go gating, ROI on fixes)
Technical sections:
- Findings with PoC, affected invariants, exploitability reasoning, and patch guidance
- Fix verification matrix: every closed issue re-tested with artifacts and PR hashes
Appendices:
- Tool versions, seeds, coverage, opcode/chain matrix, SBOM, SLSA attestations

If your current vendor’s SOW doesn’t include these items, you’re buying a narrative—not assurance.

Practical examples (with precise, current risks)

Transient storage and reentrancy locks
We include “multi-call in same tx” tests to ensure locks are cleared at end-of-call, not just end-of-transaction. This avoids deadlocks and privilege bypass patterns now seen in the wild (SIR.trading). The deliverable is a failing test pre‑fix and a passing test post‑fix, plus guidance on using TSTORE/TLOAD only when the network supports it. (blog.verichains.io)
MCOPY compatibility checks
Solidity 0.8.25+ emits MCOPY for byte array ops. Our network matrix validates that your deployment targets won’t revert at runtime due to unsupported opcodes. If they do, we show you the exact call sites and gas/cost alternatives. (soliditylang.org)
Upgradeability hardening (UUPS/Transparent)
We supply storage layout deltas and defend against UUPS pitfalls (authorization, ERC‑1822 checks, selector clashes). You get the OZ validation logs and a small Foundry test suite that attempts unsafe upgrades—expected to revert. (docs.openzeppelin.com)
ZK circuit coverage and migration notes
If you run Boojum today and plan for Airbender tomorrow, we document prover requirements (GPU/CPU), constraints/gadgets, and migration impacts on proving cost. We add “negative proof” tests to ensure invalid witnesses fail consistently across versions. (docs.zksync.io)

Emerging best practices to require in 2026 SOWs

“Evidence-first” audits
- Mandate SBOM (SPDX 3.0) and SLSA v1 attestations with your reports. Procurement can attach these to SOC 2 and reduce back‑and‑forth. (prnewswire.com)
Properties ≥ unit tests
- Require a minimum set of invariants (ERC‑20/4626 and protocol‑specific), fuzz run configs, and coverage corpora saved as artifacts. This turns audits into regression suites your team owns. (blog.trailofbits.com)
Network-aware builds
- Include an opcode compatibility section (MCOPY, TSTORE/TLOAD, SELFDESTRUCT semantics) across your target L1/L2s. Don’t assume EVM behavior is uniform. (blog.sigmaprime.io)
ZK circuit quantification
- Demand constraint counts, lookup usage, and proving-time benchmarks with versioned prover configs—and a migration note if the proof system is evolving (e.g., Airbender). (zksync.io)
Fix‑review SLAs
- Insist on one included re-test pass with PR‑scoped reviews and updated artifacts—no new SOW for fix verification.

How 7Block Labs ties this to ROI and Procurement

We’re engineers who sign off to your leadership and your auditors. Our audit deliverables plug into Enterprise workflows and budgets.

Fewer rework cycles
- Because we ship SBOM/SLSA/SSDF mappings, Security doesn’t kick the can back to Engineering. This alone often saves 1–2 sprint cycles.
Faster go/no‑go
- The opcode/chain matrix and upgrade tests shorten architecture reviews.
Lower run costs with defensible data
- Our gas deltas quantify user cost impact (including EIP‑1153 trade-offs), helping PM/Finance prioritize fixes with dollars, not guesses. (linkedin.com)
ZK readiness without guesswork
- Constraint metrics and prover configs help you forecast proving spend and hardware needs, a prerequisite for procurement of GPU capacity or managed proving. (docs.zksync.io)

Representative 90‑day pilot outcomes (recent enterprise pilots; details under NDA):

100% conversion of audit findings into runnable tests in CI (no “manual-only” items left)
30–50% reduction in remediation time due to PR-scoped fix verification and artifact reuse
Security sign‑off achieved within the planned release train, not the next one

What to put in your RFP/SOW tomorrow morning

Copy/paste these acceptance criteria to avoid surprises:

“Auditor shall provide a Dockerized environment and lockfiles to reproduce static analysis, fuzzing, and property tests at the specified commit SHAs and compiler settings.”
“Deliverables shall include: (a) SBOM in SPDX 3.0, (b) SLSA v1.0 Build Track attestation for the audit build, and (c) SSDF SP 800‑218r1 practice mapping for all audit artifacts.” (prnewswire.com)
“Report must contain an opcode/network compatibility matrix covering EIP‑5656 MCOPY, EIP‑1153 TSTORE/TLOAD, and EIP‑6780 SELFDESTRUCT semantics for target networks.” (blog.sigmaprime.io)
“Provide property/invariant suites (Scribble annotations and Echidna/Foundry configs), seeds, campaign run parameters, and minimized failing traces for all violations.” (diligence.consensys.io)
“If ZK is in scope, provide constraint metrics, lookup usage, prover requirements, and verifier regression tests; include migration notes for prover changes (e.g., Boojum→Airbender).” (zksync.io)
“Include one round of fix‑verification with PR‑scoped diffs and updated artifacts; unresolved Critical/High items must block the final ‘Ready for Mainnet’ sign‑off.”

Where 7Block fits in your roadmap

Need end‑to‑end engineering with audit baked in? Use our smart contract and dapp build squads; we ship with audit‑ready artifacts by default: smart contract development, dapp development, and custom blockchain development services.
Want a security partner who hands Procurement their evidence? Engage our security audit services.
Integrating on-chain with existing systems, or going cross‑chain? Our blockchain integration and cross-chain solutions development keep the opcode/network matrix and governance right-sized from day one.

Bottom line: robust audit deliverables should accelerate engineering and satisfy SOC 2/SSDF evidence requirements—without another quarter of meetings. If your current vendor can’t hand over runnable tests, SBOM/SLSA, and upgrade/governance hardening, you’re accepting unnecessary schedule and security risk.

—
Book a 90-Day Pilot Strategy Call.