Security
Overview
Security is the foundation of everything we build at Clicks Protocol. We handle USDC deposits, route funds through DeFi protocols, and manage yield on behalf of AI agents. That responsibility demands rigorous engineering, transparent communication, and honest risk disclosure.
We follow a defense-in-depth approach: multiple layers of protection rather than relying on any single safeguard. Our contracts are immutable (no proxy upgrades), non-custodial (you control withdrawals), and analyzed with both automated tools and manual review. Every function that touches funds is protected by access controls and reentrancy guards.
That said, no smart contract system is risk-free. DeFi protocols interact with external dependencies, run on shared infrastructure, and operate in adversarial environments. We believe the best security posture is one that acknowledges these realities openly rather than pretending they don't exist.
Smart Contract Audits
Internal Security Review (March 2026)
We conducted a comprehensive internal security review using Slither v0.11.5 across all five production contracts. The review covered the full DeFi attack surface: reentrancy, flash loans, oracle manipulation, front-running, integer overflow, access control, denial of service, proxy/upgrade risks, and token approval patterns.
Results
H-1: CEI Pattern Violation (Fixed)
Check-Effects-Interactions pattern violation in ClicksYieldRouter.withdraw(). State variables (agentDeposited, totalDeposited) were updated after external calls to Morpho/Aave rather than before. Fixed by moving all state updates before external calls. All 58 tests passing after fix.
M-1: Locked ETH in Payable Functions
ETH sent to contracts with payable functions could be locked since no withdrawal function existed. Documented as a gas optimization trade-off.
M-2: Divide-Before-Multiply Precision
Precision issue in getMorphoAPY(). Only affects a view function used for APY estimation, no impact on state-changing logic.
M-3: Strict Equality Checks
Strict equality checks (== 0) in balance comparisons could theoretically be bypassed by sending 1 wei. Only affects owner-only functions.
Low and informational findings covered uninitialized local variables, unused return values, dead code paths, bounded loop gas costs, and timestamp dependencies, all within acceptable risk thresholds.
A third-party external audit is planned before significant TVL milestones. We will publish the full report when available.
Ownership and Governance
All production contracts are owned by a Gnosis Safe multisig at 0xaD8228fE...5B1D6A9. No single key can change ownership, upgrade contracts, or move treasury funds. The deployer wallet was retired after the ownership transfer.
In April 2026 we shipped a V2 upgrade that addressed two audit findings from the internal review: referral distribution is now wired into the fee collection flow (via ClicksFeeV2, previously the referral hook was present but unreachable), and all ownership transitioned from the deployer EOA to the Safe multisig. Existing agents were migrated without data loss. The V2 contracts inherit the same immutability, non-custody, and ReentrancyGuard properties as the originals.
Battle-Tested
Beyond static analysis, we ran adversarial exploit tests modeled after real-world DeFi hacks documented in DeFi Hack Labs. We simulated 13 distinct attack scenarios across five categories:
Reentrancy Attacks (5 scenarios)
Direct reentrancy, nested withdrawals, malicious ERC20 callbacks, cross-function reentrancy, and read-only reentrancy. After the CEI fix, all reentrancy vectors are blocked by both correct state ordering and OpenZeppelin's ReentrancyGuard.
Flash Loan Attacks (5 scenarios)
APY manipulation, Morpho utilization manipulation, liquidity drain via deposit-then-withdraw, sandwich attacks, and share price inflation. The protocol is resistant because individual agent accounting prevents fund dilution, APY reads are atomic per block, and no rebalance function is publicly callable.
Access Control Tests (28 checks)
Every modifier, every authorization gate, every cross-contract call path was verified. The onlySplitter, onlyOwner, and operator-scoping patterns are correctly applied across all contracts.
Precision and Rounding Attacks (12 scenarios)
Dust deposits (1 wei), fee calculation accuracy, yield percentage splits, first-depositor inflation attacks, and zero-value edge cases. Fee math (2% on yield) and yield splits (5-50%) are correct within 1 wei rounding tolerance.
Griefing and DoS Attacks (11 scenarios)
Mass agent registrations, deposit/withdrawal spam, block gas limit stress tests with 100+ depositors, and front-running attempts. All loops are bounded (referral depth capped at 3 levels), and individual agent accounting prevents cross-contamination between users.
The main test suite covers 58 tests, all passing. Combined with the security exploit tests, the protocol has been verified against the most common DeFi attack patterns seen in production exploits from 2017 to 2024.
Security Features
ERC-8004 Identity
Clicks Protocol is registered on the ERC-8004 Identity Registry on Base as agentId 45074. The Identity NFT points at our agent-registration manifest and accumulates on-chain reputation as Clicks processes agent jobs. Attestors who want their feedback to count toward our future reputation-aware fee tiers commit to Clicks Attestor Schema V1.
Contract Addresses (Base Mainnet)
| Contract | Address | Basescan |
|---|---|---|
| ClicksRegistry | 0x23bb0Ea69b2BD2e527D5DbA6093155A6E1D0C0a3 | View |
| ClicksSplitterV4 | 0xB7E0016d543bD443ED2A6f23d5008400255bf3C8 | View |
| ClicksYieldRouter | 0x053167a233d18E05Bc65a8d5F3F8808782a3EECD | View |
| ClicksFeeV2 | 0x8C4E07bBF0BDc3949eA133D636601D8ba17e0fb5 | View |
| ClicksReferral | 0x1E5Ab896D3b3A542C5E91852e221b2D849944ccC | View |
| Safe Multisig (Owner) | 0xaD8228fE91Ef7f900406D3689E21BD29d5B1D6A9 | View |
| USDC (Base) | 0x833589fCD6eDb6E08f4c7C32D4f71b54bdA02913 | View |
Known Risks
We believe in transparent risk disclosure. Using Clicks Protocol involves the following risks:
Smart contract risk
Despite testing and review, undiscovered bugs may exist. Smart contracts are immutable once deployed. If a critical vulnerability is found, we cannot patch the live contracts. Users would need to withdraw funds and migrate to a new deployment.
DeFi protocol dependency risk
Clicks routes funds to Aave V3 and Morpho on Base. If either protocol experiences an exploit, liquidity crisis, or unexpected behavior, funds deposited through Clicks could be affected. We do not control these external protocols.
Base chain risk
Clicks Protocol runs on Base (Coinbase L2). Base is a relatively new chain. Risks include potential sequencer downtime, bridge vulnerabilities, and the general risks associated with L2 rollup infrastructure.
Gas price volatility
While Base typically has low gas costs, spikes in L1 Ethereum gas prices can increase L2 costs. Withdrawal or deposit transactions could become temporarily expensive during periods of high network congestion.
Regulatory risk
The regulatory landscape for DeFi protocols is evolving. Changes in regulations could affect protocol operations or user access.
Bug Bounty Program
We are establishing a formal bug bounty program. Details on scope, severity tiers, and reward amounts will be published soon.
In the meantime, if you discover a security vulnerability, please report it responsibly:
Contact
security@clicksprotocol.xyzDo not disclose vulnerabilities publicly before we have had a chance to investigate and address them. We take every report seriously and will respond within 48 hours.