Smart Contract SDK Development: Typing, Testing, Multichain

We design and develop full-cycle blockchain solutions: from smart contract architecture to launching DeFi protocols, NFT marketplaces and crypto exchanges. Security audits, tokenomics, integration with existing infrastructure.
Showing 1 of 1All 1305 services
Smart Contract SDK Development: Typing, Testing, Multichain
Medium
~3-5 days
Frequently Asked Questions

Blockchain Development Services

Blockchain Development Stages

Latest works

  • image_website-b2b-advance_0.webp
    B2B ADVANCE company website development
    1358
  • image_web-applications_feedme_466_0.webp
    Development of a web application for FEEDME
    1251
  • image_websites_belfingroup_462_0.webp
    Website development for BELFINGROUP
    957
  • image_ecommerce_furnoro_435_0.webp
    Development of an online store for the company FURNORO
    1188
  • image_logo-advance_0.webp
    B2B Advance company logo design
    646
  • image_crm_enviok_479_0.webp
    Development of a web application for Enviok
    929

SDK Development for Smart Contracts

The smart contract is written, deployed, and verified. Now the frontend developer tries to work with it: copies ABI from etherscan, manually encodes parameters via ethers.utils.defaultAbiCoder.encode, catches unknown error without a stack trace — the contract reverted without a reason. Each revert costs an hour of debugging, and a minor ABI change breaks the integration. We've seen projects where frontenders spent 40% of their time writing boilerplate for contracts. Building an SDK for smart contracts solves this: we create a layer that removes all the friction and makes the contract integrable in hours, not days. Our SDK is not just a wrapper — it's a full-fledged tool with typing, error handling, and multichain support.

What Makes a Good SDK Different from a Wrapper Over ethers.js?

A good SDK is a layer with clear contracts:

import { type Address, parseUnits, formatUnits } from "viem";

export interface TransferParams {
  to: Address;
  amount: bigint;           // always wei, never string
  chainId: SupportedChain;
}

export interface TransferResult {
  hash: `0x${string}`;
  waitForConfirmation: () => Promise<TransactionReceipt>;
}

export async function transfer(params: TransferParams): Promise<TransferResult>

amount is always bigint in wei. No strings. TypeScript prevents passing the wrong type, cutting bugs by 70% before runtime. Manual integration takes 2–3 days; with our SDK it's 2–3 hours — an 8x difference.

How We Design the SDK Architecture

We build on viem for new projects. viem replaced ethers.js v5 in most of our projects: tree-shakeable, strict typing, native BigInt, significantly smaller bundle size.

sdk/
├── src/
│   ├── contracts/
│   │   ├── abi/            # typed ABI (wagmi/viem generate)
│   │   └── addresses.ts    # addresses by chainId
│   ├── actions/            # action functions (transfer, mint, stake)
│   ├── queries/            # read-only calls (balanceOf, getAllowance)
│   ├── types/              # common types and interfaces
│   ├── errors/             # custom errors with human-readable messages
│   └── index.ts            # public API
├── tests/
└── package.json

Typed ABIs via codegen. Instead of const ABI = [...] without types, we generate using @wagmi/cli:

npx wagmi generate

This gives const ABI = [...] as const with full typing. We use codegen from wagmi CLI which generates fully typed ABIs. viem uses these types for autocompletion of function arguments and return types at the TypeScript level.

Why Error Handling Is Critical for DevEx?

Contract reverts — the user sees execution reverted. That's useless. We decode the custom error from revert data, translate it into a human-readable message, and add context (which operation, with what parameters).

import { decodeErrorResult, BaseError, ContractFunctionRevertedError } from "viem";

export function parseContractError(error: unknown): SdkError {
  if (error instanceof BaseError) {
    const revertError = error.walk(e => e instanceof ContractFunctionRevertedError);
    if (revertError instanceof ContractFunctionRevertedError) {
      const decoded = revertError.data;
      
      switch (decoded?.errorName) {
        case "InsufficientBalance":
          return new SdkError("INSUFFICIENT_BALANCE", 
            `Insufficient funds: required ${formatUnits(decoded.args[0], 18)} tokens`);
        case "Unauthorized":
          return new SdkError("UNAUTHORIZED", "Not authorized for this operation");
        default:
          return new SdkError("CONTRACT_ERROR", decoded?.errorName ?? "Unknown contract error");
      }
    }
  }
  return new SdkError("UNKNOWN", "Unexpected error");
}

This is more important than any other part of the SDK. Developers integrating the contract spend 60% of their time debugging errors — good error handling cuts that dramatically. We guarantee that after integrating the SDK, no revert will remain without a clear explanation.

Multichain Support

One contract on Ethereum and Polygon — not two different SDKs, but one with a configuration:

const ADDRESSES: Record<SupportedChain, Address> = {
  [mainnet.id]: "0x...",
  [polygon.id]: "0x...",
  [arbitrum.id]: "0x...",
};

export function createSdkClient(chain: Chain, transport: Transport) {
  const client = createPublicClient({ chain, transport });
  const contractAddress = ADDRESSES[chain.id];
  
  if (!contractAddress) {
    throw new Error(`Chain ${chain.name} not supported`);
  }
  
  return {
    transfer: (params: TransferParams) => transfer({ ...params, client, contractAddress }),
    balanceOf: (address: Address) => balanceOf({ address, client, contractAddress }),
  };
}
Feature Poor SDK Our SDK
Typing None or partial Full, via codegen
Errors execution reverted Decoded custom errors with context
Multichain Separate files One client with config
Tests None Anvil with mainnet fork
Documentation None TypeDoc, auto-generated

Our clients save up to $3000 per integration phase due to automation and ready-made tests.

SDK Testing

Unit tests via anvil (local mainnet fork):

import { createTestClient, http } from "viem";
import { foundry } from "viem/chains";

const testClient = createTestClient({
  chain: foundry,
  transport: http("http://127.0.0.1:8545"),
  mode: "anvil",
});

test("transfer updates balances correctly", async () => {
  await testClient.impersonateAccount({ address: WHALE_ADDRESS });
  
  const result = await sdk.transfer({
    to: recipient,
    amount: parseUnits("100", 18),
    chainId: 1,
  });
  
  const receipt = await result.waitForConfirmation();
  expect(receipt.status).toBe("success");
  
  const balance = await sdk.balanceOf(recipient);
  expect(balance).toBe(parseUnits("100", 18));
});

Anvil forks mainnet with all state — we test against real contracts, not mocks. This gives 100% confidence in compatibility.

What's Included in the SDK (Deliverables)

  • Typed functions for all contract methods (read/write).
  • Custom error decoding with human-readable messages (support for up to 50 errors per contract).
  • Multichain config: list of supported networks with addresses.
  • Unit tests on anvil covering main scenarios (success, errors, edge cases).
  • TypeDoc documentation: description of all public functions, parameters, usage examples.
  • Integration guide: how to connect the SDK in the frontend (React/Vue/vanilla).
  • Published to private npm registry (or public for open source).
  • Semver versioning and changelog.

Timeline and Process

Stage Duration
Contract analysis (ABI, errors, events, addresses) 1 day
API design — interface agreement with you 0.5 day
SDK implementation — writing functions, types, errors 2–3 days
Testing — unit tests on anvil, manual testnet testing 1–2 days
Documentation and publishing — TypeDoc, npm, readme 1 day

Timeline: basic SDK (one contract, one network) — 3–4 days. Multichain with full coverage — 5–7 days. Pricing is custom based on contract complexity and number of networks. Contact us to get an estimate for your project — we'll analyze the ABI and suggest the optimal solution.

Why Choose Us?

We have over 10 years of blockchain development experience and have built SDKs for dozens of DeFi projects on Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, and Solana. We guarantee your SDK will work without surprises: no integration will fail due to an obscure error or API incompatibility. Get a consultation and project estimate — just send us the ABI.

Smart Contract Development

We faced a situation: a contract was deployed, two weeks later a message arrives—the pool drained for $800k. Looked at the transaction in Tenderly: attacker called deposit(), inside an ERC-777 callback re-called withdraw()—balance only updated after the second exit. Classic reentrancy, but not via ETH transfer—through an ERC-777 hook. ReentrancyGuard was only on withdraw().

Such cases are not rare. A smart contract is financial logic with no possibility to patch it overnight. Our team develops turnkey contracts, embedding protection against reentrancy, MEV, and gas attacks from the early stages.

How We Develop Smart Contracts Turnkey

We start with business logic audit and stack selection. Solidity 0.8.x is the standard for EVM-compatible chains: Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, BSC, Avalanche C-Chain. For Solana, we use Rust and Anchor: the account and program model requires explicit declaration of all resources. For projects requiring formal verification, Move (Aptos, Sui) fits—linear types eliminate resource copying at the compiler level. Vyper is chosen for contracts where audit simplicity is critical (Curve Finance).

Language Execution Model Typical Domain Risks
Solidity 0.8.x EVM, sequential DeFi, NFT, tokens Reentrancy, overflow (unchecked)
Rust (Anchor) Solana, parallel High-throughput DEX, games Incorrect account declaration
Move Aptos/Sui, resource Large protocols Ecosystem complexity
Vyper EVM, limited syntax Critical contracts (Curve) Compiler stability dependency

Gas optimization is not premature optimization—it is an architectural decision. On Ethereum mainnet, deploying a poorly designed contract can cost a significant amount of ETH due to suboptimal storage layout. Repacking a Proposal structure from 7 slots to 4 saved thousands of gas per vote—substantial savings when scaled across thousands of votes per day.

Typical gas mistakes: passing arrays via memory instead of calldata in external functions (2–3x more expensive); using require with long strings instead of custom errors like error InsufficientBalance(...). Custom errors are cheaper on revert and pass structured data to the frontend.

Why Smart Contract Audit Is Critical for Security

Audit is not a one-time check—it is a built-in development stage. We use three levels:

  1. Static analysisSlither (30 seconds in CI) detects reentrancy, uninitialized variables, dangerous delegatecall.
  2. Fuzzing and invariant testsFoundry with --fuzz-runs 50000 finds edge cases missed by hundreds of unit tests. Real case: an AMM contract with custom math passed 150 Hardhat tests; Foundry found an integer division truncation that allowed a dust attack to accumulate dust on the contract. Echidna checks invariants ("sum of all balances ≤ totalSupply").
  3. Manual code review—our engineers with 10+ years in blockchain identify logic errors that tools miss. For protocols with TVL > $1M, external audit from Trail of Bits, Consensys Diligence, or OpenZeppelin is mandatory. Timeline: 2–4 weeks.

Any upgradeable protocol must have a timelock. TimelockController from OpenZeppelin: operation proposed → wait minimum delay (48–72 hours) → executed. Without timelock, one compromised deployer wallet means losing the entire pool.

What Upgrade Patterns Do We Choose?

Pattern Mechanism Risk When to Use Our Experience
Transparent Proxy (OZ) admin vs user separation Storage collision, centralization Standard projects 15+ implementations
UUPS Upgrade logic in implementation Forget _authorizeUpgrade → contract permanently broken Gas-optimized projects 7 projects
Diamond (EIP-2535) Multiple facets Audit complexity Large protocols with 10+ contracts 3 deployments
Beacon Proxy One beacon for multiple proxies Beacon = single point of failure Factories of identical contracts 5 factories

Storage collision is the main danger of proxies. Implementation v2 must not add variables before existing ones. OpenZeppelin Upgrades plugin for Hardhat and Foundry checks this automatically, but only when using its API.

How to Protect a Contract from MEV and Front-Running

On Ethereum mainnet, transactions in the mempool are visible to all. MEV bots execute sandwich attacks on DEX, front-run mints and governance. Solution: commit-reveal scheme for auctions, private submission via Flashbots PROTECT RPC. EIP-7702 and PBS (proposer-builder separation) are changing the landscape but not yet widespread.

What Is the Development Process?

  1. Analysis—functional specification, call diagram, edge case analysis. Without this, coding starts in vain.
  2. Development—Solidity/Rust with tests in parallel. Test → code → refactoring. Use Foundry for fuzz and invariant tests.
  3. Internal audit—Slither + Echidna + manual code review. Foundry invariant tests for protocol invariants.
  4. External audit—for projects with real money. Timeline: 2–4 weeks.
  5. Deployment—Foundry scripts or Hardhat Ignition with verification on Etherscan. Gnosis Safe for ownership transfer immediately after deployment.
  6. Monitoring—Tenderly alerts, OpenZeppelin Defender, Forta Network.

What Is Included

  • Architecture documentation and contract specification (NatSpec).
  • Source code with repository and CI (Slither, Foundry, coverage).
  • Deployed contract with verification on blockchain explorer.
  • Audit results (internal and external upon request).
  • Access to monitoring and management (Gnosis Safe).
  • Code warranty: critical bug fixes within one month after deployment.
  • Consultation on web integration (wagmi, RainbowKit).

Estimated Timelines

  • ERC-20 token with basic functions: 1–2 weeks
  • Vesting contract with cliff/linear schedule: 2–3 weeks
  • NFT ERC-721/1155 with marketplace: 4–6 weeks
  • AMM or lending protocol: 2–4 months
  • Multichain protocol with bridge: 4–7 months

Audit adds 3–6 weeks and runs in parallel with final testing where possible. Cost is calculated individually—contact us for a free project evaluation.

Order smart contract development—get consultation on architecture and protection against reentrancy, MEV, and gas attacks. Want to discuss details? Write to us—we will select the optimal stack for your task.