spec-to-code-compliance
by trailofbitsspec-to-code-compliance verifies that code matches written specifications exactly for blockchain audits and Compliance Review. Use the spec-to-code-compliance skill to compare whitepapers, design docs, and implementations, identify missing behavior, and flag undocumented or divergent logic.
This skill scores 78/100, which means it is a solid listing candidate for directory users who need spec-to-code compliance checks for blockchain audits. It gives enough workflow structure, trigger guidance, and output requirements to reduce guesswork versus a generic prompt, though users should still expect a fairly specialized, documentation-heavy process.
- Explicit use cases and concrete triggers for comparing code against specifications, whitepapers, and protocol docs.
- Strong operational guidance via checklist and required IR/output formats, including completeness thresholds and line-level evidence requirements.
- Large, non-placeholder body with multiple supporting resources, indicating a real workflow rather than a demo or stub.
- Highly specialized to blockchain/specification compliance, so it is not a general code-review or vulnerability-finding skill.
- No install command or script-based automation is provided, so adoption depends on the user following the written workflow carefully.
Overview of spec-to-code-compliance skill
spec-to-code-compliance is a focused audit skill for checking whether code matches a written specification exactly. It is best for blockchain and protocol teams that need evidence-backed compliance review, not generic code review. Use the spec-to-code-compliance skill when you have both the spec and the implementation, and you need to answer a hard question: what is implemented, what is missing, and what diverges in behavior, invariants, or security guarantees.
What this skill is for
This skill is designed for spec-to-code compliance analysis, especially in smart contracts, protocol logic, and other high-stakes codebases with formal docs. It helps identify gaps between whitepapers, design docs, and code, including omitted workflows, changed assumptions, undocumented behavior, and incomplete security enforcement.
Best-fit users and jobs
It is a strong fit for auditors, protocol engineers, security reviewers, and technical PMs preparing for a Compliance Review. If you need to compare intended behavior against live code before launch, this skill gives you a more disciplined workflow than a normal prompt.
Main differentiator
The main value of spec-to-code-compliance is traceability: it pushes the analysis toward explicit spec extraction, code-level evidence, and alignment checks. That makes it more reliable than asking an AI to “review the code” in one pass.
How to Use spec-to-code-compliance skill
Install and activate it
Use the repo install path for the skill, then point the model at the specific codebase and spec documents you want checked. A typical spec-to-code-compliance install starts from the plugin path in trailofbits/skills and then runs the skill in a repo that contains both documentation and source.
Give the skill the right inputs
For good spec-to-code-compliance usage, provide:
- the specification source or sources
- the target codebase or commit
- the exact scope, such as one contract, module, or protocol flow
- any known exclusions, assumptions, or review criteria
A weak request is: “Check if this is compliant.” A stronger request is: “Compare docs/whitepaper.md and contracts/Router.sol for swap slippage, deadline handling, and authorization, and flag any behavior not covered by the spec.”
Read these files first
Start with SKILL.md, then read resources/OUTPUT_REQUIREMENTS.md, resources/COMPLETENESS_CHECKLIST.md, and resources/IR_EXAMPLES.md. Those files tell you what the skill expects to extract, how completeness is judged, and what a good compliance record looks like.
Workflow that gets better results
A practical spec-to-code-compliance guide is:
- identify the spec sections with requirements, invariants, and workflows
- map each requirement to the exact functions, modifiers, and state changes in code
- note every mismatch, missing branch, and undocumented assumption
- summarize by severity and confidence, not by volume of findings
The biggest quality gain comes from being specific about the behavior under review. If you narrow the scope to one flow, one contract, or one invariant set, the output is usually sharper and easier to verify.
spec-to-code-compliance skill FAQ
Is spec-to-code-compliance only for blockchain code?
No, but it is clearly optimized for blockchain and protocol documentation. If your project does not have formal specs, whitepapers, or design docs, the skill is usually the wrong tool.
How is this different from a normal code review prompt?
A normal prompt may find bugs or summarize code. spec-to-code-compliance is for compliance review: it checks whether implementation matches documented intent, including omissions and mismatched guarantees.
Do beginners need audit experience to use it?
No. Beginners can use the spec-to-code-compliance skill if they can supply the spec and code clearly. The main requirement is not expertise, but good source selection and a bounded question.
When should I not use it?
Do not use it when you only want documentation writing, broad vulnerability hunting, or general understanding of unfamiliar code. If there is no authoritative spec, the analysis will be less meaningful and the fit is weak.
How to Improve spec-to-code-compliance skill
Focus on the spec claims that matter most
For better spec-to-code-compliance results, prioritize requirements with user impact, security impact, or economic impact: invariants, roles, trust boundaries, state transitions, and explicit MUST/NEVER language. Those are the claims most likely to affect Compliance Review decisions.
Provide concrete evidence boundaries
Give the model the exact document names, code paths, and commit or tag if possible. If you know the review should ignore test helpers, admin scripts, or unrelated modules, say so up front. Clear boundaries reduce false gaps and keep the analysis on the intended implementation surface.
Watch for the common failure modes
The usual weak spots are implicit spec claims, hidden state transitions, and partial matches that look correct at a glance. If the first pass is inconclusive, ask for a tighter alignment table that maps each spec claim to a code location or notes it as unimplemented.
Iterate with a sharper second pass
If the first output is too broad, refine the prompt with one of these:
- “Check only authorization and upgrade paths”
- “Compare the fee math against the spec formulas”
- “List all spec claims that have no code counterpart”
That kind of follow-up turns spec-to-code-compliance from a summary tool into a precise verification workflow.