Include sections for Safeharbor/BugBounties updates

[0xBasset]

No description provided.

[amusingaxl]

Shouldn't make all that available from the main Makefile?
Check the cast-on-tenderly entry there for reference.

[amusingaxl]

Aren't we using multicall now?
This way we can just pass the data and make a higher level call, which won't require us to check the success status.

[0xBasset]

The issue is that the multicall accepts:

    struct Call {
        address target;
        bytes callData;
    }

function aggregate(Call[] memory calls);

Therefore, if there are multiple calls, we would need to use the annoying syntax of:

Call memory calls = new Call[](x);
calls[0] = { ... };
...
calls[x] = { ...};

multicall.aggregate(calls);

Which I personally think it's much worse in terms of clutter and amount of outputs.

[amusingaxl]

I see, makes sense.
However there's another point, the script already provides the raw data for a low-level call to MULTICALL, so the checklist should reference this contract, not the agreement:

Suggested change

	* [ ] The call MUST use the pattern: `(bool succ, bytes memory err) = AGREEMENT.call(<encodedDATA>);`
	* [ ] The call MUST use the pattern: `(bool succ, bytes memory err) = MULTICALL.call(<encodedDATA>);`

[amusingaxl]

Suggested change

	* [ ] Confirm `make update-bug-bounty` returns empty
	* [ ] Confirm `make safeharbor-generate` returns empty

[amusingaxl]

Suggested change

	* [ ] Verify `make update-bug-bounty` returns empty diff in test environment after spell execution
	* [ ] Verify `make safeharbor-generate` returns empty diff in test environment after spell execution

[amusingaxl]

This specific step should probably be in the checklist right after "cast on tenderly".

[amusingaxl]

You don't need to explicitly mention the spells-mainnet repo, as it's implied. All other actions in the checklist happen there.

Suggested change

	* [ ] Run `make safeharbor-verify calldata=0xhexEncodedData` command in the `spells-mainnet` repo, passing the calldata in the spell to check for it's validity.
	* [ ] Run `make safeharbor-verify calldata=<encodedDATA>` command, passing the calldata in the spell to check for it's validity.

[amusingaxl]

Suggested change

	* [ ] Verify the call uses the correct pattern: `(bool succ, bytes memory err) = AGREEMENT.call(<encodedDATA>);`
	* [ ] Verify the call uses the correct pattern: `(bool succ, bytes memory err) = MULTICALL.call(<encodedDATA>);`

[amusingaxl]

There will be only one call. Using "for each" here might be confusing.

Suggested change

	* [ ] Confirm proper error handling is implemented for each call
	* [ ] Confirm proper error handling is implemented for the call

[amusingaxl]

"Appropriate" here is too subjective.
It's probably worth expanding which are the exact comments/documentation expectations.
Probably we should take the more detailed crafter check items and adapt them here.

[amusingaxl]

Hmm, not sure we want to have the function in the checklist. Maybe we just reference the archive:

Suggested change

	* [ ] If not already present, add the helper function to perform the call:
	```solidity
	function _updateSafeHarbor(bytes[] memory calldatas) public {
	for (uint256 i = 0; i < calldatas.length; i++) {
	(bool success, ) = address(AGREEMENT_ADDRESS).call(calldatas[i]);
	require(success, "SaferHarbor call failed");
	}
	}
	```
	* [ ] If not already present, add the helper function to perform the call, using the established archive pattern.

[SidestreamBurningBanana]

Approving with 2 nits present, will give re-approval if they are resolved