Back to portfolio
Technical & SecuritySimulated project
Smart Contract Developer portfolio brief
A simulated technical & security exercise for Smart Contract Developer. Treat it as realistic practice, not real client or protocol work.
7 deliverables6 tools referenced3 linked interview questions
Objective
Build one scoped contract system
Expected deliverables
Contract repositoryTest suiteDeployment scriptsTechnical specificationThreat modelAudit remediation logRunbook
Recommended workflow
- Build one scoped contract system
- Write unit, fuzz, and invariant tests
- Document assumptions, threat model, deployment, and monitoring
- Review the result against the rubric, then package it as a case study.
Constraints and safety
- Use only public sources or clearly simulated data.
- Never include seed phrases, private keys, or wallet secrets.
- Redact private user, company, security, legal, or compensation information.
- State every assumption you make.
Tools in practice
- Solidity or relevant chain language
- Implement contracts, run unit and fuzz tests, script deployments, and compare custom code against established libraries.
- Foundry or Hardhat
- Implement contracts, run unit and fuzz tests, script deployments, and compare custom code against established libraries.
- OpenZeppelin
- Implement contracts, run unit and fuzz tests, script deployments, and compare custom code against established libraries.
- GitHub
- Review source, manage branches and pull requests, run tests, and leave implementation or security decisions in a traceable history.
- static analysis
- Implement contracts, run unit and fuzz tests, script deployments, and compare custom code against established libraries.
- block explorers
- Verify transactions, contract addresses, events, token movements, deployment state, and incident claims against chain data.
What a strong submission shows
- A small but complete protocol module
- Comprehensive tests
- A threat model
- A deployment and rollback note
Weak submission patterns
- Forked code with superficial changes
- Contracts with no tests
- Portfolio claims based only on testnet deployment
Review rubric
- Accuracy of claims and sources
- Relevance to the target role
- Decision quality and trade-offs
- Completeness of the deliverable
- Clarity of communication
- Honest limitations and next steps
Present it as a case study
- Explain the problem, sources, decisions, ownership, constraints, output, review, and what you would change.
- Show the final artifact before the process notes.
- State what you owned and what belonged to other people.
- Label the work as simulated, and keep any real contribution clearly separate.
Interview questions this project helps you answer
How do you define and test an invariant?
When is upgradeability justified, and what new risks does it create?
How would you prepare a contract for audit and production deployment?