chore(audit): remove reconciled legacy audit-run 2026-03-23-01

[thedavidmeister]

What

Delete the legacy internal audit-run working directory audit/2026-03-23-01/ (just triage.md). audit/protofire/ and audit/payant/ are untouched.

Why — nothing is lost (all 18 findings accounted for)

Verified every finding in the triage against the issue tracker and live source:

• 10 findings → dedicated closed issues: H01→audit H01 — off-by-one in MAX_STACK_RHS_OFFSET corrupts LHS item counter #484, M05→audit M05 — unbounded LHS count in endLine() for empty-RHS lines #485, M06→audit M06 — LibOpExtern.integrity() lacks local assertion vs operand-encoded stack delta #486, L02→audit L02 — LibOpCall missing 0x0F mask on outputs extraction #487, L03→audit L03 — LibOpCall.integrity() ignores operand-encoded inputs #488, I04→audit I04 — LibOpExtern.integrity() missing constants[] bounds check #489, I05→audit I05 — LibOpStack.run uses mload(state) (hardcoded InterpreterState layout) #490, I06→audit I06 — float identity testing relies on implicit referenceFn() divergence #491, I07→audit I07 — variable-length logic opcodes asymmetric input clamp between integrity() and run() #492, I08→audit I08 — LibParse.parse() doesn't call checkParseMemoryOverflow() internally #493 (all CLOSED).
• 8 findings → verified resolved in code (no issue needed):
  • M01 OOB second-byte read → test testTryParseLiteralOOBSecondBytePoison
  • M02 OOB pragma literal → test testParsePragmaOOBAfterInterstitial
  • M03 sub-parser dispatch length truncation → test testSubParseLiteralDispatchLengthOverflow
  • M04 LHS item count overflow → test testLHSItemCountOverflow256
  • L01 uppercase 0X hex bypass → test testTryParseLiteralUppercaseXReverts
  • I01 dead MalformedHexLiteral → defensive-fallback comment in LibParseLiteralHex.sol
  • I02 unused ParseState param → verified genuine false-positive (using for implicit receiver)
  • I03 misleading non-ASCII doc comment → removed

No unfiled findings.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Review was skipped due to path filters

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• audit/2026-03-23-01/triage.md is excluded by !audit/**

CodeRabbit blocks several paths by default. You can override this behavior by explicitly including those paths in the path filters. For example, including **/dist/** will override the default block on the dist directory, by removing the pattern from both the lists.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: dbd2dbb2-2dc3-43a5-a840-3e21e36d12f2

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• 🔍 Trigger review

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch chore/remove-legacy-audit-run

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[thedavidmeister]

Reviewed 146795a: ready — deletes only audit/2026-03-23-01/triage.md; all 18 findings verified captured (10 in closed issues #484-#493, 8 resolved in live source). The lone red check (rainix-sol/static) is a PRE-EXISTING main-red (failing on main since 2026-07-03, unrelated to a markdown deletion); every other check passes. Admin-merging per approval.

[github-actions]

@coderabbitai assess this PR size classification for the totality of the PR with the following criterias and report it in your comment:

S/M/L PR Classification Guidelines:

This guide helps classify merged pull requests by effort and complexity rather than just line count. The goal is to assess the difficulty and scope of changes after they have been completed.

Small (S)

Characteristics:

• Simple bug fixes, typos, or minor refactoring
• Single-purpose changes affecting 1-2 files
• Documentation updates
• Configuration tweaks
• Changes that require minimal context to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 5-10 minutes

Examples:

• Fix typo in variable name
• Update README with new instructions
• Adjust configuration values
• Simple one-line bug fixes
• Import statement cleanup

Medium (M)

Characteristics:

• Feature additions or enhancements
• Refactoring that touches multiple files but maintains existing behavior
• Breaking changes with backward compatibility
• Changes requiring some domain knowledge to review

Review Effort: Would have taken 15-30 minutes

Examples:

• Add new feature or component
• Refactor common utility functions
• Update dependencies with minor breaking changes
• Add new component with tests
• Performance optimizations
• More complex bug fixes

Large (L)

Characteristics:

• Major feature implementations
• Breaking changes or API redesigns
• Complex refactoring across multiple modules
• New architectural patterns or significant design changes
• Changes requiring deep context and multiple review rounds

Review Effort: Would have taken 45+ minutes

Examples:

• Complete new feature with frontend/backend changes
• Protocol upgrades or breaking changes
• Major architectural refactoring
• Framework or technology upgrades

Additional Factors to Consider

When deciding between sizes, also consider:

• Test coverage impact: More comprehensive test changes lean toward larger classification
• Risk level: Changes to critical systems bump up a size category
• Team familiarity: Novel patterns or technologies increase complexity

Notes:

• the assessment must be for the totality of the PR, that means comparing the base branch to the last commit of the PR
• the assessment output must be exactly one of: S, M or L (single-line comment) in format of: SIZE={S/M/L}
• do not include any additional text, only the size classification
• your assessment comment must not include tips or additional sections
• do NOT tag me or anyone else on your comment