should this be moved to line 1, so that the mod and imports are included?

the TS script also imports from @aztec/ethereum, @aztec/foundation, and @aztec/viem which aren't listed

I think the numbering is messed up here. I don't think we start with burning tokens.

Oh i see, this is the flow, assuming you already have tokens on Aztec. It'd be worth clarifying that

make it more clear that these functions should be inserted into the body of the contract (if the reader is following along and building the contract)

I see syntax errors when adding these functions. I am running through the tutorial on version v5.0.0-nightly.20260303

claude says this is the issue (and it does indeed fix it):
The token contract uses path = "../../../../aztec-nr/aztec" (within the aztec-packages monorepo), but our contract pulls aztec from a different git URL (aztec-nr repo). This creates a diamond dependency — two different copies of PrivateCall/PublicCall types that the compiler treats as distinct.

The fix is to source our aztec dependency from aztec-packages (same as the token contract resolves to), not from the separate aztec-nr repo.

wdyt about using the defi wonderland token?

I think if we integrate it it should be in a downstream pr ! there are separate considerations to make if using that token

aztec new also sets up a test dir, so either we need to tell readers to delete it, or set some up. Claude update the test file to this

use aztec::protocol::address::{AztecAddress, EthAddress};
use aztec::protocol::traits::FromField;
use aztec::test::helpers::test_environment::TestEnvironment;
use aave_bridge::AaveBridge;

#[test]
unconstrained fn test_constructor() {
    let mut env = TestEnvironment::new();
    let deployer = env.create_light_account();

    let token = AztecAddress::from_field(1);
    let portal = EthAddress::from_field(2);

    let initializer = AaveBridge::interface().constructor(token, portal);
    let _contract_address =
        env.deploy("@aave_bridge/AaveBridge").with_public_initializer(deployer, initializer);
}

Make it clear what the exact names of these files should be

This box isnt used in the diagram, maybe just remove it?

node 24?

Do we have a time estimate we could share on this, or a heuristic so readers can get a sense for how long it might take?

add a note that they might just need to update the tag on @aztec/l1-contracts in this referenced repo's package.json

e.g.

    "@aztec/l1-contracts": "git+https://github.com/AztecProtocol/l1-contracts.git#v5.0.0-nightly.20260311",

there is a test folder as well

├── aave_bridge_test
│   ├── Nargo.toml
│   └── src
│       └── lib.nr

I was also struggling with the remappings here. Claude worked around it by importing directly from the npm packages

import {IRegistry} from "@aztec/l1-contracts/src/governance/interfaces/IRegistry.sol";
import {IInbox} from "@aztec/l1-contracts/src/core/interfaces/messagebridge/IInbox.sol";
import {IOutbox} from "@aztec/l1-contracts/src/core/interfaces/messagebridge/IOutbox.sol";
import {IRollup} from "@aztec/l1-contracts/src/core/interfaces/IRollup.sol";
import {DataStructures} from "@aztec/l1-contracts/src/core/libraries/DataStructures.sol";
import {Hash} from "@aztec/l1-contracts/src/core/libraries/crypto/Hash.sol";
import {Epoch} from "@aztec/l1-contracts/src/core/libraries/TimeLib.sol";

following along, this is actually the relative path

i dont think this gets the right version. @aztec/viem@#include_version_without_prefix, @aztec/viem only has version 2.38.2

also had to update this path to import { AaveBridgeContract } from "../contracts/aztec/artifacts/AaveBridge.js";