logo
bg_imgbg_imgbg_imgbg_img
exclamation mark iconReport an issue

If you notice some outdated information please let us know!

close icon
Name
Email
Your message
arrow-left

Convex

89%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Convex

Final score:89%
Date:11 Feb 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Nick
PQR Score:89%

PASS

Scoring Appendix

The final review score is indicated as a percentage. The percentage is calculated as Achieved Points due to MAX Possible Points. For each element the answer can be either Yes/No or a percentage. For a detailed breakdown of the individual weights of each question, please consult this document.

The blockchain used by this protocol
Ethereum
#QuestionAnswer
89%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.50
91%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.80%
9.100%
70%
10.100%
11.50%
12.Yes
13.0%
14.No
15.Yes
86%
16.90%
17.60%
97%
18.100%
19.100%
20.100%
21.100%
22.100%
23.80%
24.100%
25.100%
100%
26.100%
27.Yes
28.Yes
Total:89%

Very simply, the audit looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.

  • Here is my smart contract on the blockchain
  • You can see it matches a software repository used to develop the code
  • Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contract does
  • Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract
  • Here are the audit(s) performed to review my code by third party experts

This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice of any kind, nor does it constitute an offer to provide investment advisory or other services. Nothing in this report shall be considered a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security, token, future, option or other financial instrument or to offer or provide any investment advice or service to any person in any jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this report constitutes investment advice or offers any opinion with respect to the suitability of any security, and the views expressed in this report should not be taken as advice to buy, sell or hold any security. The information in this report should not be relied upon for the purpose of investing. In preparing the information contained in this report, we have not taken into account the investment needs, objectives and financial circumstances of any particular investor. This information has no regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs of any specific recipient of this information and investments discussed may not be suitable for all investors.

Any views expressed in this report by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. The views expressed within this report are limited to DeFiSafety and the author and do not reflect those of any additional or third party and are strictly based upon DeFiSafety, its authors, interpretations and evaluation of relevant data. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may quickly become unreliable for various reasons, including changes in market conditions or economic circumstances.

This completed report is copyright (c) DeFiSafety 2021. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.

Smart Contracts & Team

89%

This section looks at the code deployed on the relevant chain that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here.

1. Are the smart contract addresses easy to find? (%)

Answer: 100%

They can be found at https://docs.convexfinance.com/convexfinance/faq/contract-addresses, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clearly labelled and on website, documents or repository, quick to find
70%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking
40%
Addresses in mainnet.json, in discord or sub graph, etc
20%
Address found but labeling not clear or easy to find
0%
Executing addresses could not be found

2. How active is the primary contract? (%)

Answer: 100%

Contract Booster is used 100+ times a day, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
More than 10 transactions a day
70%
More than 10 transactions a week
40%
More than 10 transactions a month
10%
Less than 10 transactions a month
0%
No activity

3. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Location: https://github.com/convex-eth

Score Guidance:
Yes
There is a public software repository with the code at a minimum, but also normally test and scripts. Even if the repository was created just to hold the files and has just 1 transaction.
No
For teams with private repositories.

4. Is there a development history visible? (%)

Answer: 100%

At 361 commits, Convex clearly does a good job of allowing others to see it in their rear-view mirrors.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Any one of 100+ commits, 10+branches
70%
Any one of 70+ commits, 7+branches
50%
Any one of 50+ commits, 5+branches
30%
Any one of 30+ commits, 3+branches
0%
Less than 2 branches or less than 30 commits

5. Is the team public (not anonymous)?

Answer: 50

One team member is public.

Score Guidance:
100%
At least two names can be easily found in the protocol's website, documentation or medium. These are then confirmed by the personal websites of the individuals / their linkedin / twitter.
50%
At least one public name can be found to be working on the protocol.
0%
No public team members could be found.

Documentation

91%

The difference between this and the old link is solely the link.    This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.

6. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Location: https://docs.convexfinance.com/convexfinance/

7. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

This protocol's software architecture is well documented.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The documents identify software architecture and contract interaction through any of the following: diagrams, arrows, specific reference to software functions or a written explanation on how smart contracts interact.
No
Protocols receive a "no" if none of these are included.

8. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)

Answer: 80%

There is coverage of major deployed contracts by software function documentation.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All contracts and functions documented
80%
Only the major functions documented
79 - 1%
Estimate of the level of software documentation
0%
No software documentation

9. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)

Answer: 100%

There is explicit traceability between important software documentation and implemented code.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clear explicit traceability between code and documentation at a requirement level for all code
60%
Clear association between code and documents via non explicit traceability
40%
Documentation lists all the functions and describes their functions
0%
No connection between documentation and code

Testing

70%

10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)

Answer: 100%

Code examples are in the Appendix at the end of this report. As per the SLOC, there is 120% testing to code (TtC).    This score is guided by the Test to Code ratio (TtC). Generally a good test to code ratio is over 100%. However, the reviewer's best judgement is the final deciding factor.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
TtC > 120% Both unit and system test visible
80%
TtC > 80% Both unit and system test visible
40%
TtC < 80% Some tests visible
0%
No tests obvious

11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)

Answer: 50%

There are no documented tests for code coverage. However, there is evidence of good testing.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Documented full coverage
99 - 51%
Value of test coverage from documented results
50%
No indication of code coverage but clearly there is a complete set of tests
30%
Some tests evident but not complete
0%
No test for coverage seen

12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Test scripts are provided.

Score Guidance:
Yes
Scripts and/or instructions to run tests are available in the testing suite
No
Scripts and/or instructions to run tests are not available in the testing suite

13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)

Answer: 0%

There are no test reports.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Detailed test report as described below
70%
GitHub code coverage report visible
0%
No test report evident

14. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)

Answer: No

This protocol has not undergone formal verification.

Score Guidance:
Yes
Formal Verification was performed and the report is readily available
No
Formal Verification was not performed and/or the report is not readily available.

15. Were the smart contracts deployed to a testnet? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

This protocol has documented deployment to a testnet. They forked mainnet.

Score Guidance:
Yes
Protocol has proved their tesnet usage by providing the addresses
No
Protocol has not proved their testnet usage by providing the addresses

Security

86%

This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 90%

Convex was audited once before deployment.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Multiple Audits performed before deployment and the audit findings are public and implemented or not required
90%
Single audit performed before deployment and audit findings are public and implemented or not required
70%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. The Audit report is public.
65%
Code is forked from an already audited protocol and a changelog is provided explaining why forked code was used and what changes were made. This changelog must justify why the changes made do not affect the audit.
50%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and changes are needed but not implemented.
30%
Audit(s) performed are low-quality and do not indicate proper due diligence.
20%
No audit performed
0%
Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public OR smart contract address' not found.
Deduct 25% if the audited code is not available for comparison.

17. Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)

Answer: 60%

Convex offers an inactive bug bounty of $250K.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Bounty is 10% TVL or at least $1M AND active program (see below)
90%
Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k AND active program
80%
Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k
70%
Bounty is 100k or over AND active program
60%
Bounty is 100k or over
50%
Bounty is 50k or over AND active program
40%
Bounty is 50k or over
20%
Bug bounty program bounty is less than 50k
0%
No bug bounty program offered / the bug bounty program is dead
An active program means that a third party (such as Immunefi) is actively driving hackers to the site. An inactive program would be static mentions on the docs.

Admin Controls

97%

This section covers the documentation of special access controls for a DeFi protocol. The admin access controls are the contracts that allow updating contracts or coefficients in the protocol. Since these contracts can allow the protocol admins to "change the rules", complete disclosure of capabilities is vital for user's transparency. It is explained in this document.

18. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to find?

Answer: 100%

Admin control information was documented at this location. This was quick to find.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Admin Controls are clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find
70%
Admin Controls are clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking
40%
Admin Control docs are in multiple places and not well labelled
20%
Admin Control docs are in multiple places and not labelled
0%
Admin Control information could not be found

19. Are relevant contracts clearly labelled as upgradeable or immutable? (%)

Answer: 100%

The relevant contracts are clearly identified as immutable / upgradeable, as identified here. This admin control information is some of the best we've seen and other protocols would do well to emulate such a detailed, specific and concise page.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Both the contract documentation and the smart contract code state that the code is not upgradeable or immutable.
80%
All Contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not)
50%
Code is immutable but not mentioned anywhere in the documentation
0%
Admin control information could not be found

20. Is the type of smart contract ownership clearly indicated? (%)

Answer: 100%

Ownership is clearly indicated in this location.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
The type of ownership is clearly indicated in their documentation. (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / etc)
50%
The type of ownership is indicated, but only in the code. (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / etc)
0%
Admin Control information could not be found

21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)

Answer: 100%

Smart contract change capabilities are well identified for all Convex contracts.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
The documentation covers the capabilities for change for all smart contracts
50%
The documentation covers the capabilities for change in some, but not all contracts
0%
The documentation does not cover the capabilities for change in any contract

22. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to understand? (%)

Answer: 100%

The Convex admin control information is not in software specific language and relates to user investment safety by assuring the protocol's non-custodial nature.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All the contracts are immutable
90%
Description relates to investments safety in clear non-software language
30%
Description all in software-specific language
0%
No admin control information could be found

23. Is there sufficient Pause Control documentation? (%)

Answer: 80%

Convex's pause control is documented and well explained in this location. There is no evidence of testing.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Pause control(s) are clearly documented and there is records of at least one test within 3 months
80%
Pause control(s) explained clearly but no evidence of regular tests
40%
Pause controls mentioned with no detail on capability or tests
0%
Pause control not documented or explained

24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)

Answer: 100%

Convex doesn't use timelocks, and explains this in this location.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Documentation identifies and explains why the protocol does not need a Timelock OR Timelock documentation identifies its duration, which contracts it applies to and justifies this time period.
60%
A Timelock is identified and its duration is specified
30%
A Timelock is identified
0%
No Timelock information was documented

25. Is the Timelock of an adequate length? (Y/N)

Answer: 100%

Convex does not use a timelock.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Timelock is between 48 hours to 1 week OR justification as to why no Timelock is needed / is outside this length.
50%
Timelock is less than 48 hours or greater than 1 week.
0%
No Timelock information was documented OR no timelock length was identified.

Oracles

100%

This section goes over the documentation that a protocol may or may not supply about their Oracle usage. Oracles are a fundamental part of DeFi as they are responsible for relaying tons of price data information to thousands of protocols using blockchain technology. Not only are they important for price feeds, but they are also an essential component of transaction verification and security. This is explained in this document.

26. Is the protocol's Oracle sufficiently documented? (%)

Answer: 100%

Convex does not use a data source, and this is justified at this location.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
If it uses one, the Oracle is specified. The contracts dependent on the oracle are identified. Basic software functions are identified (if the protocol provides its own price feed data). Timeframe of price feeds are identified. OR The reason as to why the protocol does not use an Oracle is identified and explained.
75%
The Oracle documentation identifies both source and timeframe, but does not provide additional context regarding smart contracts.
50%
Only the Oracle source is identified.
0%
No oracle is named / no oracle information is documented.

27. Is front running mitigated by this protocol? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Convex cannot be front run, since it is price-agnostic.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The protocol cannot be front run and there is an explanation as to why OR documented front running countermeasures are implemented.
No
The Oracle documentation identifies both source and timeframe, but does not provide additional context regarding smart contracts.

28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Flashloans are not applicable to this protocol, as identified.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The protocol's documentation includes information on how they mitigate the possibilities and extents of flash loan attacks.
No
The protocol's documentation does not include any information regarding the mitigation of flash loan attacks.

Appendices

1import "./Interfaces.sol";
2import '@openzeppelin/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol';
3import '@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol';
4import '@openzeppelin/contracts/utils/Address.sol';
5import '@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/SafeERC20.sol';
6
7
8contract Booster{
9    using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
10    using Address for address;
11    using SafeMath for uint256;
12
13    address public constant crv = address(0xD533a949740bb3306d119CC777fa900bA034cd52);
14    address public constant registry = address(0x0000000022D53366457F9d5E68Ec105046FC4383);
15    uint256 public constant distributionAddressId = 4;
16    address public constant voteOwnership = address(0xE478de485ad2fe566d49342Cbd03E49ed7DB3356);
17    address public constant voteParameter = address(0xBCfF8B0b9419b9A88c44546519b1e909cF330399);
18
19    uint256 public lockIncentive = 1000; //incentive to crv stakers
20    uint256 public stakerIncentive = 450; //incentive to native token stakers
21    uint256 public earmarkIncentive = 50; //incentive to users who spend gas to make calls
22    uint256 public platformFee = 0; //possible fee to build treasury
23    uint256 public constant MaxFees = 2000;
24    uint256 public constant FEE_DENOMINATOR = 10000;
25
26    address public owner;
27    address public feeManager;
28    address public poolManager;
29    address public immutable staker;
30    address public immutable minter;
31    address public rewardFactory;
32    address public stashFactory;
33    address public tokenFactory;
34    address public rewardArbitrator;
35    address public voteDelegate;
36    address public treasury;
37    address public stakerRewards; //cvx rewards
38    address public lockRewards; //cvxCrv rewards(crv)
39    address public lockFees; //cvxCrv vecrv fees
40    address public feeDistro;
41    address public feeToken;
42
43    bool public isShutdown;
44
45    struct PoolInfo {
46        address lptoken;
47        address token;
48        address gauge;
49        address crvRewards;
50        address stash;
51        bool shutdown;
52    }
53
54    //index(pid) -> pool
55    PoolInfo[] public poolInfo;
56    mapping(address => bool) public gaugeMap;
57
58    event Deposited(address indexed user, uint256 indexed poolid, uint256 amount);
59    event Withdrawn(address indexed user, uint256 indexed poolid, uint256 amount);
60
61    constructor(address _staker, address _minter) public {
62        isShutdown = false;
63        staker = _staker;
64        owner = msg.sender;
65        voteDelegate = msg.sender;
66        feeManager = msg.sender;
67        poolManager = msg.sender;
68        feeDistro = address(0); //address(0xA464e6DCda8AC41e03616F95f4BC98a13b8922Dc);
69        feeToken = address(0); //address(0x6c3F90f043a72FA612cbac8115EE7e52BDe6E490);
70        treasury = address(0);
71        minter = _minter;
72    }
73
74
75    /// SETTER SECTION ///
76
77    function setOwner(address _owner) external {
78        require(msg.sender == owner, "!auth");
79        owner = _owner;
80    }
81
82    function setFeeManager(address _feeM) external {
83        require(msg.sender == feeManager, "!auth");
84        feeManager = _feeM;
85    }
86
87    function setPoolManager(address _poolM) external {
88        require(msg.sender == poolManager, "!auth");
89        poolManager = _poolM;
90    }
91
92    function setFactories(address _rfactory, address _sfactory, address _tfactory) external {
93        require(msg.sender == owner, "!auth");
94        
95        //reward factory only allow this to be called once even if owner
96        //removes ability to inject malicious staking contracts
97        //token factory can also be immutable
98        if(rewardFactory == address(0)){
99            rewardFactory = _rfactory;
100            tokenFactory = _tfactory;
101        }
102
103        //stash factory should be considered more safe to change
104        //updating may be required to handle new types of gauges
105        stashFactory = _sfactory;
106    }
107
108    function setArbitrator(address _arb) external {
109        require(msg.sender==owner, "!auth");
110        rewardArbitrator = _arb;
111    }
112
113    function setVoteDelegate(address _voteDelegate) external {
114        require(msg.sender==voteDelegate, "!auth");
115        voteDelegate = _voteDelegate;
116    }
117
118    function setRewardContracts(address _rewards, address _stakerRewards) external {
119        require(msg.sender == owner, "!auth");
120        
121        //reward contracts are immutable or else the owner
122        //has a means to redeploy and mint cvx via rewardClaimed()
123        if(lockRewards == address(0)){
124            lockRewards = _rewards;
125            stakerRewards = _stakerRewards;
126        }
127    }
128
129    // Set reward token and claim contract, get from Curve's registry
130    function setFeeInfo() external {
131        require(msg.sender==feeManager, "!auth");
132        
133        feeDistro = IRegistry(registry).get_address(distributionAddressId);
134        address _feeToken = IFeeDistro(feeDistro).token();
135        if(feeToken != _feeToken){
136            //create a new reward contract for the new token
137            lockFees = IRewardFactory(rewardFactory).CreateTokenRewards(_feeToken,lockRewards,address(this));
138            feeToken = _feeToken;
139        }
140    }
141
142    function setFees(uint256 _lockFees, uint256 _stakerFees, uint256 _callerFees, uint256 _platform) external{
143        require(msg.sender==feeManager, "!auth");
144
145        uint256 total = _lockFees.add(_stakerFees).add(_callerFees).add(_platform);
146        require(total <= MaxFees, ">MaxFees");
147
148        //values must be within certain ranges     
149        if(_lockFees >= 1000 && _lockFees <= 1500
150            && _stakerFees >= 300 && _stakerFees <= 600
151            && _callerFees >= 10 && _callerFees <= 100
152            && _platform <= 200){
153            lockIncentive = _lockFees;
154            stakerIncentive = _stakerFees;
155            earmarkIncentive = _callerFees;
156            platformFee = _platform;
157        }
158    }
159
160    function setTreasury(address _treasury) external {
161        require(msg.sender==feeManager, "!auth");
162        treasury = _treasury;
163    }
164
165    /// END SETTER SECTION ///
166
167
168    function poolLength() external view returns (uint256) {
169        return poolInfo.length;
170    }
171
172    //create a new pool
173    function addPool(address _lptoken, address _gauge, uint256 _stashVersion) external returns(bool){
174        require(msg.sender==poolManager && !isShutdown, "!add");
175        require(_gauge != address(0) && _lptoken != address(0),"!param");
176
177        //the next pool's pid
178        uint256 pid = poolInfo.length;
179
180        //create a tokenized deposit
181        address token = ITokenFactory(tokenFactory).CreateDepositToken(_lptoken);
182        //create a reward contract for crv rewards
183        address newRewardPool = IRewardFactory(rewardFactory).CreateCrvRewards(pid,token);
184        //create a stash to handle extra incentives
185        address stash = IStashFactory(stashFactory).CreateStash(pid,_gauge,staker,_stashVersion);
186
187        //add the new pool
188        poolInfo.push(
189            PoolInfo({
190                lptoken: _lptoken,
191                token: token,
192                gauge: _gauge,
193                crvRewards: newRewardPool,
194                stash: stash,
195                shutdown: false
196            })
197        );
198        gaugeMap[_gauge] = true;
199        //give stashes access to rewardfactory and voteproxy
200        //   voteproxy so it can grab the incentive tokens off the contract after claiming rewards
201        //   reward factory so that stashes can make new extra reward contracts if a new incentive is added to the gauge
202        if(stash != address(0)){
203            poolInfo[pid].stash = stash;
204            IStaker(staker).setStashAccess(stash,true);
205            IRewardFactory(rewardFactory).setAccess(stash,true);
206        }
207        return true;
208    }
209
210    //shutdown pool
211    function shutdownPool(uint256 _pid) external returns(bool){
212        require(msg.sender==poolManager, "!auth");
213        PoolInfo storage pool = poolInfo[_pid];
214
215        //withdraw from gauge
216        try IStaker(staker).withdrawAll(pool.lptoken,pool.gauge){
217        }catch{}
218
219        pool.shutdown = true;
220        gaugeMap[pool.gauge] = false;
221        return true;
222    }
223
224    //shutdown this contract.
225    //  unstake and pull all lp tokens to this address
226    //  only allow withdrawals
227    function shutdownSystem() external{
228        require(msg.sender == owner, "!auth");
229        isShutdown = true;
230
231        for(uint i=0; i < poolInfo.length; i++){
232            PoolInfo storage pool = poolInfo[i];
233            if (pool.shutdown) continue;
234
235            address token = pool.lptoken;
236            address gauge = pool.gauge;
237
238            //withdraw from gauge
239            try IStaker(staker).withdrawAll(token,gauge){
240                pool.shutdown = true;
241            }catch{}
242        }
243    }
244
245
246    //deposit lp tokens and stake
247    function deposit(uint256 _pid, uint256 _amount, bool _stake) public returns(bool){
248        require(!isShutdown,"shutdown");
249        PoolInfo storage pool = poolInfo[_pid];
250        require(pool.shutdown == false, "pool is closed");
251
252        //send to proxy to stake
253        address lptoken = pool.lptoken;
254        IERC20(lptoken).safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, staker, _amount);
255
256        //stake
257        address gauge = pool.gauge;
258        require(gauge != address(0),"!gauge setting");
259        IStaker(staker).deposit(lptoken,gauge);
260
261        //some gauges claim rewards when depositing, stash them in a seperate contract until next claim
262        address stash = pool.stash;
263        if(stash != address(0)){
264            IStash(stash).stashRewards();
265        }
266
267        address token = pool.token;
268        if(_stake){
269            //mint here and send to rewards on user behalf
270            ITokenMinter(token).mint(address(this),_amount);
271            address rewardContract = pool.crvRewards;
272            IERC20(token).safeApprove(rewardContract,0);
273            IERC20(token).safeApprove(rewardContract,_amount);
274            IRewards(rewardContract).stakeFor(msg.sender,_amount);
275        }else{
276            //add user balance directly
277            ITokenMinter(token).mint(msg.sender,_amount);
278        }
279
280        
281        emit Deposited(msg.sender, _pid, _amount);
282        return true;
283    }
284
285    //deposit all lp tokens and stake
286    function depositAll(uint256 _pid, bool _stake) external returns(bool){
287        address lptoken = poolInfo[_pid].lptoken;
288        uint256 balance = IERC20(lptoken).balanceOf(msg.sender);
289        deposit(_pid,balance,_stake);
290        return true;
291    }
292

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
JavaScript
46
7966
735
735
5941
4973
100

Tests to Code: 5941 / 4973 = 119 %