Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-1153: Transient storage opcodes

Assessed in Cancun / Dencun. The score describes the EIP text available at the assessment cutoff, not the EIP as it stands today.

RetrospectiveCancun / DencunAssessment cutoff 2022-12-08Included by cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 15
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2022-12-07 · c282a9bd3e

Scope at the cutoff. At the 2022-12-08 information cutoff, EIP-1153 added two constant-cost EVM opcodes, TLOAD and TSTORE, backed by contract-private transient storage that is shared across the owning contract's frames and discarded after each transaction. The proposal specified storage-like addressing, call-type ownership, nested-revert rollback, and static-context behavior without changing existing opcode semantics or using the refund counter. It also supplied a map-and-journal reference design and analyzed worst-case memory allocation and revert work.

15MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 4 criteria affected
Plausible range
15–16 (Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2022-12-08 · EIP revision c282a9bd3e (2022-12-07)
Score bands · Checklist revision 2
  • Low <12
  • Medium 12–22
  • High ≥23

28 criteria scored 0–3 (4 in exceptional cases; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped); nominal maximum 84.

Complexity profile

Each segment is one criterion's contribution to the LLM total. Hover or focus a segment for its score and rationale.

Top complexity drivers

  1. Edge/boundary conditions3
  2. Added opcodes2
  3. EVM Gas rule changes2
  4. Security risks2

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes

The EIP text available at the assessment cutoff left material behavior unresolved. The affected criteria and the plausible total range record that uncertainty.

Why: The normative TLOAD sentence says that after fetching a word the opcode "pops" the value on top of the stack, conflicting with its SLOAD-like load role and failing to state the expected pushed result. The intended reading is strongly signaled, but literal cross-client vectors require agreement; address lifecycle and whether gas values are fixed or referential are also not fully explicit.

Plausible total

15–16
recorded score 15 · plausible tiers Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (3)
  • Does TLOAD push the fetched word, despite the normative sentence saying it pops a value?
  • Is transient storage identity strictly address-keyed if an address is destroyed and recreated within one transaction?
  • Are both opcode costs fixed at 100 gas, or do they track the named warm/dirty SSTORE and hot SLOAD referent costs?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • The TLOAD specification says it fetches a word and then "pops" the value instead of specifying a pushed result.
  • The warm/hot cost analogies and parenthetical 100-gas values do not clearly state whether the schedule is referential or fixed.
  • The state-access-ordering anchor is rubric-sensitive because the EIP calls the map state while expressly excluding persistent storage and any cold/warm access-recording rule.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-1153 Cancun / Dencun: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3Several independent boundary-prone mechanisms combine: transaction lifetime, same- versus cross-owner frames, CALL/STATICCALL versus DELEGATECALL/CALLCODE, success versus nested revert, and static write failure. The ownership-by-call-type and nested-revert matrix requires an elevated number of cases, meeting score 3.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; score 4 is not used.

  • eip.md · Specification, lines 57-65 Tests must cover transaction-end clearing, frame sharing, ownership under four call forms, nested revert rollback, and the TSTORE/TLOAD distinction in static context.
  • eip.md · Reference Implementation, lines 101-108 Correct rollback requires checkpoints across frame entry, successful return, and reverse journal application on revert.
Confidence: High
Added opcodesUnder-specified2Two new opcodes are introduced. Each has fixed-size stack operands, no data portion, and a constant cost, so they are multiple simple opcodes and match score 2.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; score 4 is not used.

  • eip.md · Specification, lines 43-55 The EIP adds TLOAD at 0xb3 and TSTORE at 0xb4, with one- and two-word stack interfaces, word addressing, and constant gas costs.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The TLOAD result sentence has a normative stack-action typo, recorded under under-specification, but it does not make the opcode structurally complex.
EVM Gas rule changesUnder-specified2The two opcodes add new execution-gas charging sites, so this is a new EVM gas rule. Their fixed 100-gas schedule neither changes an existing opcode's accounting nor introduces refunds, matching score 2 rather than score 3.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; score 4 is not used.

  • eip.md · Specification, lines 53-55 TLOAD and TSTORE receive newly specified constant execution-gas costs, each defined by reference to an existing warm or hot storage-operation cost.
  • eip.md · Rationale, lines 85-90 The proposal states that existing operation semantics remain unchanged and characterizes the new opcodes' accounting as simpler.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The wording does not make fully explicit whether the costs are permanently 100 or track the named warm/hot referent costs, but that does not change the anchor score at the cutoff.
Security risks2The mechanism touches a limited but meaningful set of existing components: call-context ownership, reversion, static execution, reentrancy patterns, and node memory. These slightly alter assumptions for contracts using the feature and warrant targeted review and fuzzing, but the EIP does not alter existing opcode invariants broadly enough for score 3.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; score 4 is not used.

  • eip.md · Specification, lines 59-65 Security-sensitive semantics vary across call ownership, nested reverts, and static contexts.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 225-249 The EIP identifies linear node-memory allocation, transaction-lifetime misuse, reentrancy-lock hazards, and unexpected persistence across frame returns as risks.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The document analyzes hazards qualitatively but includes no packaged implementation or security-test results.
Performance risks2Loads and normal stores can be benchmarked directly, but total cost cannot be validated wholly in isolation because checkpoints, nested reverts, and transaction-wide allocation interact with call execution and journaling. The EIP's comparison to existing worst cases supports limited rather than substantial benchmark impact, matching score 2.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; score 4 is not used.

  • eip.md · Reference Implementation, lines 101-108 and 201-201 The recommended journal is constant-time on normal paths but reverse-linear on revert; a worst-case reverting transaction performs twice the writes, although the EIP compares this with existing state journaling.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 225-245 TSTORE permits linear node-memory allocation up to about 9.15 MB at the stated block gas limit, and the EIP compares this with call-reset memory allocation up to about 20 MB.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The package supplies complexity bounds and gas-limit examples but no measured client benchmarks.
Cross-EIP interactions2Coordinated consideration with EIP-2200 and EIP-3529 is required for the referenced gas schedule and deliberate refund separation; EIP-20 supplies a limited contract-level use-case interaction. The dependencies are real but narrow and do not modify those EIPs' mechanisms, matching score 2 rather than extensive score-3 interdependence.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; score 4 is not used.

  • eip.md · Front matter and Motivation, lines 12-12 and 28-36 EIP-1153 formally requires EIP-2200 and EIP-3529 and identifies an EIP-20 temporary-approval use case.
  • eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 55-55 and 69-73 Opcode pricing is defined using storage-operation costs, while the design deliberately separates transient behavior from the refund mechanism changed by the required EIPs.
  • supporting/eip-2200.md · Specification, lines 57-105 EIP-2200 defines the dirty-slot SSTORE gas and refund machinery to which EIP-1153 compares TSTORE.
  • supporting/eip-3529.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 25-41 and 62-71 EIP-3529 caps transaction refunds and discusses reentrancy locks and approve-and-send patterns that motivate the separate transient mechanism.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Unnumbered draft-opcode allocation and future-storage-design references are preserved separately and not inferred.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-20, EIP-2200, EIP-3529
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1Existing invalid- or undefined-opcode coverage for the two assigned bytes needs localized rework, but existing contract and opcode-behavior tests are otherwise unaffected. That is a minor subset under score 1.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; score 4 is not used.

  • eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 45-45 and 93-97 Bytes 0xb3 and 0xb4 become valid opcodes, while the EIP expressly leaves all existing opcode behavior unchanged.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The historical EIP does not inventory the pre-existing test corpus; the affected invalid-opcode subset is inferred directly from assigning the two opcode bytes.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified1A few localized details are imperfectly specified, most notably the self-contradictory TLOAD result action. The SLOAD analogy, the word "fetches," and the reference implementation make the intended behavior obvious enough for score 1, but clients still need a shared correction or interpretation before baselining literal opcode tests.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; score 4 is not used.

  • eip.md · Specification, lines 47-51 TLOAD is said to use the SLOAD stack interface and fetch a word, but its final normative clause says it "pops" the value rather than stating that it pushes the fetched word.
  • eip.md · Reference Implementation, lines 127-150 The non-normative implementation makes absent keys read as a zero word, clarifying a behavior not stated as directly in the opcode specification.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Same-transaction address destruction/recreation and whether the 100-gas values are fixed or referential are also not expressly resolved.
Show 20 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes0No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified or deprecated.
  • eip.md · Rationale and Backwards Compatibility, lines 85-90 and 93-97 The EIP expressly says it does not change the semantics or behavior of existing operations and opcodes.
Added precompiles0No precompile is introduced.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 15-22 and 43-65 The proposal adds two opcodes and no address-based precompile.
Modified precompiles0No pre-existing precompile is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 43-65 and 93-97 The specified change is confined to new opcodes and leaves existing behavior unchanged, with no precompile gas or logic change.
Added system contracts0No system contract is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 57-65 Transient storage is private runtime data belonging to ordinary contract frames, not a newly deployed protocol contract.
Modified system contracts0No pre-existing system contract code, state, or behavior is modified directly or indirectly.
  • eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 43-65 and 93-97 The EIP adds general EVM functionality and states that existing smart-contract behavior is unchanged; it identifies no system contract effect.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0The text introduces no cold/warm recording, block-level access-list effect, or change to gas-versus-access ordering for an existing opcode. Transient map access is the new opcodes' result mechanism, but the proposal provides no recordable persistent-state access whose internal ordering changes under this anchor.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 17-17 and 55-57 Transient values are never loaded from or written to persistent storage, have fixed warm/hot-equivalent costs, and are discarded at transaction end.
Uncertainty: The proposal calls transient storage "state"; this assessment treats its non-persistent, fixed-cost map access as outside the rubric's recordable state-access-ordering concern.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob gas accounting is introduced or modified.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 15-22 and 43-65 The complete feature is two transient-storage EVM opcodes and contains no blob mechanism or blob-gas rule.
State gas accounting changes0The EIP adds ordinary EVM execution-gas charges but no persistent-state byte charge, state-gas budget, reservoir, charging site, or spill rule.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Rationale, lines 17-17 and 85-91 Transient values are never serialized to persistent storage, clients need not load an original value, and future persistent-storage designs need not account for them.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund mechanism is introduced; avoiding refunds is a central design choice.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Rationale, lines 41-41 and 69-71 The EIP expressly says no refunds are required and prefers a mechanism that does not interact with the refund counter.
New transaction types0No new transaction type is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 43-65 Transient storage is available through opcodes inside ordinary transaction execution; no transaction envelope or type is defined.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Existing transaction validity and intrinsic gas calculations are unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 43-65 and 93-97 The hard-fork change affects opcode execution only and defines no transaction validity or intrinsic-gas rule.
New block / header fields0No new block body or header field is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 43-65 The full specification adds EVM runtime behavior and no block or header field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No RLP, SSZ, or other transaction/block/interface encoding changes are introduced.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 15-22 and 43-65 The EIP adds internal EVM word operations and no transaction, block, or interface serialization.
Block syncing changes0No block RLP validation mechanism requiring sync testing is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 43-65 and 93-97 The EIP changes EVM execution only and specifies no block RLP field or block-validation rule.
New fork activation mechanism0Opcode availability changes at the fork, but there is no special activation-block state transition or variable modification.
  • eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 57-57 and 93-95 Although a hard fork activates the opcodes, transient values are transaction-local and discarded; no activation-block state or existing internal variable is modified.
Engine API changes0No Engine API communication change is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 43-65 The proposal specifies only EVM-local opcodes and transient-store lifecycle, with no Engine API field or endpoint.
Transition-tool interface changes0The feature requires no new transition-tool field or interface mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 43-65 All specified inputs and effects are internal EVM opcode, call-frame, and transaction-lifetime behavior; no transition interface field is introduced.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Tests that do not execute TLOAD or TSTORE produce no transient values and gain no new externally asserted result or invariant.
  • eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 57-57 and 93-97 Transaction-end clearing applies only to newly created transient values, and existing opcode and contract behavior is unchanged.
New test-framework primitives0These cases can be constructed as EVM programs and multi-transaction tests using existing execution-test concepts; the EIP requires no new expectation type, modifier, or permanent framework abstraction.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 47-65 The observable cases are ordinary stack operations, calls, reverts, static execution, and transaction boundaries.
Uncertainty: The package contains no description of the historical test framework, so this is judged from the required observable cases.
Cryptography0No cryptographic mechanism is introduced or modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 43-65 The mechanism consists of word-addressed transient loads and stores and contains no cryptographic operation.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@c282a9bd3e EIPS/eip-1153.md committed 2022-12-07 · information cutoff 2022-12-08
Current master · File history · blob 3ea30688b1 · sha256 33bdd1ff47f8
Rubric
Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator
gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning effort · isolation bubblewrap_one_eip_capsule_v1
Source record
Frozen research record research/tasks/05-retrospective-complexity-assignment/outputs/fork-eips/cancun/eip-1153.yaml · sha256 62ef329ab004
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-20.md, supporting/eip-2200.md, supporting/eip-3529.md
Compare EIP-1153 with other assessmentsAll Cancun / Dencun assessments
Criterion legend and glossary

Every stacked bar, comparison matrix, and criterion table on this site uses the same criterion colours, abbreviations, and order. Colour marks the criterion group; the abbreviation and name identify the criterion. Scores are 0–3 per criterion (4 is exceptional; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped).

EVM surface

Opcodes, precompiles, and system contracts that are added or modified.

  • Added opcodes
    Introduces new opcodes
    Score anchors
    0
    No new opcodes are introduced.
    1
    A new simple opcode is introduced (no data portion, no complex stack mechanics, and a constant gas cost).
    2
    Multiple new simple opcodes are introduced, or a single new complex opcode is introduced (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
    3
    Multiple new opcodes are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
    • Cryptography opcodes are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" section for a separate assessment.
  • Modified opcodes
    Modifies pre-existing opcodes
    Score anchors
    0
    No pre-existing opcode modifications are introduced.
    3
    At least one pre-existing opcode's behavior is modified (not including gas changes) or a pre-existing opcode is deprecated.
  • Added precompiles
    Introduces new precompiles
    Score anchors
    0
    No new precompiles are introduced.
    1
    A new simple precompile is introduced (constant input length, constant gas cost).
    2
    Multiple new simple precompiles are introduced, or a single new complex precompile is introduced (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
    3
    Multiple new precompiles are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
    • Cryptography precompiles are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" for a separate assessment.
  • Modified precompiles
    Modifies pre-existing precompiles logic or gas-accounting
    Score anchors
    0
    No pre-existing precompiles are modified.
    1
    At least one pre-existing precompile has its gas schedule modified.
    2
    Multiple pre-existing precompiles have their gas schedule modified, or a single pre-existing precompile has its behavior modified.
    3
    The behavior of multiple pre-existing precompiles, or a single complex pre-existing precompile modified.
  • Added system contracts
    Introduces new system contract, stateful or not
    Score anchors
    0
    No new system contracts are introduced.
    1
    A new system contract is introduced that is not stateful nor does it trigger a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
    2
    Multiple new system contracts are introduced or a single new system contract that is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
    3
    Multiple new system contracts are introduced and at least one of them is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
  • Modified system contracts
    Modifies pre-existing system contracts
    Score anchors
    0
    No modifications to pre-existing system contracts are introduced, directly or indirectly.
    1
    Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has minor indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
    2
    Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has major indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
    3
    At least one pre-existing system contract code or state is modified, which would involve irregular state transition or a similarly complex transition methodology.

Gas and accounting

Execution, blob, and state gas rules, refunds, and where charges happen inside opcodes.

  • EVM Gas rule changes
    New EVM gas accounting rules
    Score anchors
    0
    No gas accounting changes.
    1
    Existing gas accounting mechanism is updated.
    2
    A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
    3
    A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
  • State-access ordering within opcode execution · Checklist revision 2 only
    Changes *where inside an opcode's execution* state is accessed, or where gas is charged relative to that access. Because a state access is recorded in the block-level access list only if execution had enough gas to reach it, this ordering is consensus-critical: moving it changes the BAL at every gas boundary of every affected opcode.
    Score anchors
    0
    No change to where state is accessed, or to where gas is charged relative to a state access, within any opcode.
    1
    A single opcode's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
    2
    Multiple opcodes' ordering changes, or a new state-accessing operation is introduced whose position in the order must be settled.
    3
    The ordering rule changes for a whole class of state-accessing opcodes at once, or what counts as a recordable state access is redefined — requiring existing BAL vectors to be re-derived across opcodes and forks.
    • Distinct from "Modified opcodes", which asks whether an opcode's **result** changed. This row asks about the **path to the result**, which is observable even when the result is identical. An EIP can be 0 on that row and 3 on this one.
    • Score changes **to** the ordering. Do not score the fact that state accesses are observable — they always are.
    • Each boundary must be re-tested against every other dimension that can change the answer (cold/warm, static/non-static, delegated/direct, revert/success), so the case count grows multiplicatively rather than additively. Note this explicitly under Special Considerations.
  • Blob gas accounting changes
    New Blob gas accounting rules which potentially affect pre-existing tests
    Score anchors
    0
    No blob gas accounting changes.
    1
    Existing blob gas accounting mechanism is updated.
    2
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
    3
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
  • State gas accounting changes · Checklist revision 2 only
    New state gas accounting rules. State gas is the cost of *writing* state, as opposed to accessing or executing it: `StateGasCosts`, `COST_PER_STATE_BYTE`, the block-level state gas budget, and the spill path into execution gas.
    Score anchors
    0
    No state gas accounting changes.
    1
    An existing state gas cost or `STATE_BYTES_PER_*` rate is adjusted.
    2
    A new state-gas-charging site is introduced, or the block-level state gas budget or reservoir allocation is modified.
    3
    A new state gas charging mechanism is introduced, or the spill interaction between state gas and execution gas is modified, affecting existing gas tests.
    • Harder to test than blob gas: the spill path means state gas cannot be metered independently of execution gas, and some costs (e.g. `NEW_ACCOUNT`) are state-dependent.
  • New EVM gas refund
    New gas-refund mechanism
    Score anchors
    0
    No new gas-refund mechanisms are introduced.
    1
    A new simple gas-refund mechanism is introduced that does not affect either existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    2
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced or a simple mechanism that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    3
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.

Blocks, transactions, and encoding

Transaction types and validity, block and header fields, encodings, syncing, and activation-time changes.

  • New transaction types
    Introduces a new transaction type
    Score anchors
    0
    No new transaction types are introduced.
    3
    A new transaction type is introduced.
  • New or modified transaction validity mechanisms
    Creates new or modifies pre-existing transaction types' validation mechanisms
    Score anchors
    0
    No changes are introduced to the validity rules of existing transaction types or to their intrinsic gas cost calculation.
    1
    Minor adjustments are introduced to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation, but they do not significantly affect existing tests.
    2
    Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation affect existing tests, but require only limited updates to test cases and no redesign of the testing infrastructure.
    3
    Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation require extensive rework or redesign of the tests or testing infrastructure.
  • New block / header fields
    Introduces new block or block header fields
    Score anchors
    0
    No new block or header fields are introduced.
    3
    A new block or header field is introduced.
  • Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)
    Introduces encoding changes at the transaction/block/interfaces level
    Score anchors
    0
    No encoding changes are introduced at the transaction, block, or interfaces levels.
    3
    An encoding change is introduced at transaction, block or interfaces level (e.g. RLP -> SSZ).
    • "Interfaces level" includes the Engine API. Score an Engine API encoding change (e.g. JSON -> SSZ) here.
  • Block syncing changes
    Modifies block RLP validation mechanisms that require test client syncing.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
    1
    A single simple RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
    2
    Multiple simple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced or a single complex one.
    3
    Multiple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is deemed complex.
  • New fork activation mechanism
    Modifies state, internal variables, or similar, at the fork activation block
    Score anchors
    0
    No state modifications, internal variables or similar are modified at the fork activation block.
    3
    Either a state modification or internal variables are modified at the fork activation block.
    • Initialization of new internal variable is not considered a modification.

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

  • Engine API changes
    Introduces new fields to the Engine API directives
    Score anchors
    0
    No new fields or communication mechanisms are introduced to the Engine API.
    1
    A single new field is introduced in one of the Engine API endpoints.
    2
    Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points, or a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
    3
    Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points and a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
  • Engine API encoding changes · Checklist revision 1 only
    Engine API encoding changes (the revision-1 template defines no anchor text for this row).
  • Transition-tool interface changes
    Modifies or adds new fields to the transition tool interface.
    Score anchors
    0
    No modifications to the transition tool interface are required.
    1
    A single new field needs to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    2
    Multiple new fields or a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    3
    Multiple new fields and a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    • Special consideration must be paid to this section if the EIP introduces a mechanism that requires the state transition tool to be aware whether the block it is processing is the fork-activation block.

Testing impact

Rework, new invariants, and new primitives required in the test framework.

  • Patterns affecting pre-existing tests
    Implements a new validation mechanism or rule that translates in reworking pre-existing tests
    Score anchors
    0
    No pre-existing tests are affected by this change.
    1
    Minor subset of existing tests are affected by this change.
    2
    Considerable subset of existing tests are affected by this change but involves only a contrived category of tests.
    3
    Major subset of existing tests are affected, including diverse category of tests (benchmarks, static, multiple forks, etc.).
  • New invariant on pre-existing tests · Checklist revision 2 only
    Tests that are **not about this EIP** must nonetheless assert something this EIP produces. Their logic does not change; they gain a new thing to check.
    Score anchors
    0
    Pre-existing tests assert nothing new.
    1
    A narrow, contrived category of pre-existing tests gains a new assertion.
    2
    A broad category gains a new assertion, applied mechanically.
    3
    Every test in the fork gains the assertion regardless of what it tests, and pre-fork vectors must be re-derived to satisfy it.
    • Paired with the row above, and easy to confuse with it. "Patterns affecting pre-existing tests" asks whether existing tests must be **reworked**; this row asks whether they must **additionally assert something new**. Score both — an EIP can be low on one and high on the other.
  • New test-framework primitives · Checklist revision 2 only
    Requires new abstractions in the test framework itself — expectation types, modifiers, helpers — beyond writing test functions with what already exists.
    Score anchors
    0
    Existing test primitives suffice.
    1
    Existing primitives need minor extension.
    2
    New expectation or modifier primitives are required, reusable within this EIP's own test suite.
    3
    New framework-level primitives are required that become a permanent part of the framework and are used by other EIPs' tests.

Risk and validation

Security, performance, boundary conditions, and cryptography that need validation.

  • Security risks
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms that could compromise the security of the chain, users, validators, or other stakeholders, if not implemented properly.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new mechanisms are introduced that could pose a security risk.
    1
    The introduced mechanisms are self-contained, can be validated in isolation, and do not alter existing invariants that could pose a security risk for any stakeholders.
    2
    The introduced mechanisms interact with a limited number of existing components, slightly altering their security assumptions and requiring a targeted security review or fuzzing.
    3
    The introduced mechanisms interact with multiple existing components, including critical ones, substantially altering their security assumptions and requiring an extensive security review and fuzzing.
  • Performance risks
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms and requires performance validation.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new mechanisms are introduced that require performance validation.
    1
    The introduced mechanisms can be benchmarked in isolation and do not affect existing performance behavior.
    2
    The introduced mechanisms cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation, but they only have a limited impact on the existing performance benchmarks.
    3
    The introduced mechanisms cannot be benchmarked in isolation and have a substantial impact on existing performance benchmarks or have complex interactions with existing mechanisms.
  • Edge/boundary conditions
    Feature contains edge/boundary conditions.
    Score anchors
    0
    No discernible edge cases or boundary conditions are introduced.
    1
    A single edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanism is introduced.
    2
    Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced, but none of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
    3
    Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
  • Cryptography
    Introduces new cryptography mechanisms or modifies existing functionality that involves cryptography
    Score anchors
    0
    No cryptography mechanisms are introduced.
    1
    A new cryptography mechanism is introduced but it is a well known mechanism that is known to have vast resources to aid on its testing.
    2
    Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced that are well-known or a single but novel mechanism is introduced that is either untested or has limited resources.
    3
    Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is a novel mechanism.

Coordination

Cross-EIP interactions and behavior that clients must agree on before tests exist.

  • Cross-EIP interactions
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms that affect other EIPs in either the same or past forks.
    Score anchors
    0
    Fully self-contained EIP that does not depend on, modify, or conflict with any other EIP.
    1
    The EIP interacts with one or more other EIPs in a non-critical and limited way but can be tested independently for the most part.
    2
    The EIP depends on or modifies one or more other EIPs such that coordinated testing and consideration is required, but interactions are limited in scope and not complex.
    3
    The EIP has strong interdependencies with multiple EIPs, requiring extensive coordinated cross-EIP testing as well as potential re-design of existing test vectors.
    • +1 for every 3 additional interacting EIPs beyond the first 3, each of which requires its own coordinated test cases. List the EIPs in the rationale.
    • This row is intentionally uncapped, unlike every other anchor: each interacting EIP is another axis of the test matrix, so a ceiling would make a 12-EIP product indistinguishable from a 3-EIP one.
  • Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus · Checklist revision 2 only
    The EIP text does not determine the answer for cases a test can construct. Clients must agree on a previously unspecified detail before tests can be baselined. The cost here is coordination and re-baselining, not test writing.
    Score anchors
    0
    The EIP text determines the answer for every case a test could construct.
    1
    A few details are unspecified but have an obvious intended reading.
    2
    Details require client agreement before tests can be written, but they are localized.
    3
    A previously unspecified *and previously unobservable* behavior becomes consensus-critical; expect tests to be re-baselined on each round of EIP amendment.
    • Score this from the EIP's state at assessment time: whether it has client implementations, whether it has been through a devnet, and how many open questions remain on its discussion thread.