Victim.withdraw()
  ├── checks balance[msg.sender] > 0          ✓
  ├── msg.sender.call{value: balance}("")     ← external call
  │   └── Attacker.receive()
  │       └── Victim.withdraw()               ← re-enters before state update
  │           ├── checks balance[msg.sender]   ← still > 0!
  │           └── sends ETH again
  └── balance[msg.sender] = 0                 ← too late

unchecked {
    // "gas optimization" — but if i can be influenced by user input, overflow returns
    for (uint i = start; i < end; i++) { ... }
}

Proxy (storage):         Implementation (code):
slot 0: owner            slot 0: someVariable
slot 1: implementation   slot 1: anotherVariable

Victim submits DEX swap tx (visible in mempool)
├── Front-runner: buy token before victim (raise price)
├── Victim tx executes at worse price
└── Back-runner: sell token after victim (profit from spread)
= Sandwich attack

Single transaction:
├── Borrow large amount (no collateral)
├── Manipulate state (price oracle, governance, etc.)
├── Extract profit from manipulated state
├── Repay loan + fee
└── Keep profit

Auditing a smart contract?
├── Is it a proxy pattern?
│   ├── Yes → Check storage layout collision (Section 5)
│   │   ├── Compare slot assignments between proxy and implementation
│   │   ├── Check for function selector collision
│   │   └── Verify initializer cannot be called twice
│   └── No → Continue
├── Does it make external calls?
│   ├── Yes → Check reentrancy (Section 1)
│   │   ├── State updated before call? → CEI pattern OK
│   │   ├── ReentrancyGuard present? → Check all entry points
│   │   ├── Cross-function state sharing? → Cross-function reentrancy risk
│   │   └── View functions read during callback? → Read-only reentrancy
│   └── No → Continue
├── Does it handle tokens/ETH?
│   ├── Yes → Check integer overflow (Section 2)
│   │   ├── Solidity < 0.8? → All arithmetic suspect
│   │   ├── unchecked{} blocks? → Verify no user-influenced values
│   │   └── Casting between uint sizes? → Truncation risk
│   └── Also check self-destruct force-send (Section 8)
├── Does it use signatures?
│   ├── Yes → Check replay (Section 7)
│   │   ├── Nonce included? → Verify incremented
│   │   ├── ChainId included? → Cross-chain safe
│   │   └── ecrecover result checked for address(0)? → OK
│   └── No → Continue
├── Does it use on-chain randomness?
│   ├── Yes → Predictable (Section 4)
│   │   └── Recommend Chainlink VRF or commit-reveal with bond
│   └── No → Continue
├── Does it interact with DeFi protocols?
│   ├── Yes → Load [defi-attack-patterns](../defi-attack-patterns/SKILL.md)
│   │   ├── Flash loan vectors
│   │   ├── Oracle manipulation
│   │   └── MEV exposure
│   └── No → Continue
├── Does it use CREATE2?
│   ├── Yes → Check deterministic address exploitation (Section 9)
│   └── No → Continue
└── Run automated tools (Section 12)
    ├── Slither for static analysis
    ├── Mythril for symbolic execution
    └── Echidna for fuzzing invariants