What is a main thing that automatic code checker tools can't do well, even if they find problems in smart contracts?

The main thing that automatic code checker tools can't do well, even if they find problems in smart contracts, is accurately understand and verify the contract's *intended business logicor *semantic correctness*. These tools are highly effective at identifying common technical vulnerabilities and structural issues, such as *reentrancy*, where a malicious actor can repeatedly call a function to drain funds before the initial transaction completes, or *integer overflows/underflows*, which occur when mathematical operations exceed the maximum or fall below the minimum value a variable can hold, leading to incorrect calculations. However, their fundamental limitation lies in their inability to comprehend the higher-level purpose, specific human-designed rules, or complex real-world agreements that the smart contract is meant to implement. They lack the capacity to discern if the code truly reflects the original *intentof the contract's creators. For example, if a smart contract is designed to manage a decentralized autonomous organization's treasury based on a specific voting mechanism that weighs votes by token holding duration, an automatic tool can detect if the voting function has a reentrancy flaw or if the token balance calculation leads to an integer overflow. But it cannot determine if the chosen formula for calculating vote weight correctly aligns with the complex governance rules intended by the DAO's designers, or if the overall voting process truly achieves the desired organizational outcome, simply because the tool does not understand the deeper rationale or business objective behind those rules.