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 14

Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: 2026-10-08 · Spec revision: 2022-12-07 · c282a9bd3e

Scope at the cutoff. This revision of EIP-1153 adds two EVM opcodes, TLOAD (0xb3) and TSTORE (0xb4). They give each contract a word-addressed store that is discarded at the end of every transaction. TLOAD and TSTORE take the same stack arguments as SLOAD and SSTORE and each costs a fixed 100 gas. Neither opcode produces refunds or uses warm/cold access tracking. Transient storage is owned the same way as persistent storage, including under DELEGATECALL and CALLCODE, and writes are rolled back when a frame reverts. TSTORE raises an exception inside a STATICCALL context, while TLOAD is allowed there.

14MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v3
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 2 criteria affected
Plausible range: 13–16 (Medium)
Assessment cutoff: 2022-12-08 · EIP revision c282a9bd3e (2022-12-07)

Score bands · Checklist revision 3

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.

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 revision prices TSTORE like a dirty-slot SSTORE and says transient storage behaves identically to storage. It never says whether EIP-2200's stipend guard (fail if gasleft ≤ 2300) applies to TSTORE. TLOAD's description also says it 'pops' the loaded value, a likely typo for 'pushes'.

Plausible total

13–16
recorded score 14 · plausible tiers Medium

Affected criteria (2)

EVM Gas rule changes (0)
Security risks (2)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (2)

Does TSTORE fail with out-of-gas when gasleft ≤ 2300, as SSTORE does under EIP-2200?
How should transient storage of an account behave after SELFDESTRUCT within the same transaction, and in a failed contract-creation context, beyond the general revert rule?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)

TLOAD is described as one that "pops the value on top of the stack"; the intent is plainly to push the loaded value.
Whether the EIP-2200 stipend check applies to TSTORE.
Whether the gas costs are fixed at 100 or tied to future SSTORE/SLOAD repricing ("currently 100 gas").
The DoS argument in the Reference Implementation uses SSTORE (the TryDOS contract), not TSTORE.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-1153 Cancun / Dencun: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	2	Two simple instructions are introduced (no immediates, fixed stack, constant gas), which is level 2.	eip.md · Specification — "They use the same arguments on stack as SLOAD (0x54) and SSTORE (0x55)." Fixed stack effects (TLOAD 1→1, TSTORE 2→0) and no immediates. eip.md · Specification — "Gas cost for TSTORE ... 100 gas ... TLOAD ... 100 gas" Both have constant gas. Confidence: High Uncertainty: If an implied stipend check applied to TSTORE, it would make the instruction's failure behavior depend on gasleft. The cost would still be constant.
Security risksUnder-specified	2	Local checks cover static-context rejection, per-contract isolation, revert rollback and discard at end of transaction (no leakage between transactions in a block). TSTORE also changes the stipend-based reentrancy assumption used by other contracts: a callee could write transient state with only 2300 gas. That needs targeted integration review, which is level 2.	eip.md · Specification — "If the TSTORE opcode is called within the context of a STATICCALL, it will result in an exception" The static-context invariant is extended to a new write path. eip.md · Specification — "the owning contract of the transient storage is the contract that issued DELEGATECALL or CALLCODE" Isolation boundary per contract and per call type. supporting/eip-2200.md · Motivation — "This danger is easily mitigated if SSTORE is not allowed in low gasleft state" Reentrancy protection for the 2300-gas stipend relies on state writes being impossible at low gasleft. TSTORE at 100 gas may break that assumption. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: If an EIP-2200-style stipend check is intended for TSTORE, the stipend concern disappears and level 1 may suffice.
Performance risks	2	Two workloads need targeted integrated benchmarks: memory allocated by linear-cost TSTORE, and journal rollback on revert across nested frames. Both are a bounded interaction between the new store and frame checkpointing; they do not form cross-subsystem coupling.	eip.md · Security Considerations — "TSTORE presents a new way to allocate memory on a node with linear cost ... ~= 9.15MB" New per-transaction memory bound that exceeds the single-context MSTORE bound. eip.md · Reference Implementation — "The worst case time complexity can be produced by writing the maximum number of keys that can fit in one block, and then reverting." Worst case comes from the journal and revert interaction with call frames. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The supplied DoS argument uses SSTORE (the TryDOS contract) rather than TSTORE; worst-case TSTORE fill-then-revert is not demonstrated.
Edge/boundary conditions	2	There are several independent boundary-sensitive rules: exact-gas out-of-gas for each opcode, stack underflow, key/value extremes, and the frame-entry revert checkpoint boundary. The call-type × revert × reentrancy combinations are semantic coverage rather than an elevated boundary matrix, so level 3 is not met.	eip.md · Specification — "currently 100 gas" Exact-gas out-of-gas boundary for each opcode. eip.md · Specification — "TSTORE pops two 32-byte words"; "Addressing is the same as SLOAD and SSTORE" Stack-underflow boundaries and full 256-bit key and value ranges. eip.md · Specification — "If a frame reverts, all writes to transient storage that took place between entry to the frame and the return are reverted, including those that took place in inner calls" Revert-scope boundaries across nested frames. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: An unresolved stipend check (gasleft ≤ 2300) could add another boundary; it would not change the level.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	The interaction with EIP-2200's stipend guard needs coordinated cases. EIP-3529 needs only a local refund-compatibility check. Call-type, static-context and revert scenarios are needed but are unnumbered in the supplied documents. There is no multi-EIP vector restructuring, so this is level 2.	supporting/eip-2200.md · Specification — stipend check An SSTORE stipend guard exists. Coordinated cases are needed for TSTORE versus SSTORE at gasleft ≤ 2300. supporting/eip-3529.md · Specification — "Reduce the max gas refunded after a transaction to gas_used // MAX_REFUND_QUOTIENT" The refund cap is unaffected. A local check confirms TSTORE does not change the refund counter or the cap. eip.md · Specification — DELEGATECALL/CALLCODE/STATICCALL paragraphs Needs coordinated cases with call types, static context and revert. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Counting the unnumbered STATICCALL, DELEGATECALL and REVERT interactions as separate EIPs could argue for level 3. Interacting EIPs: EIP-2200, EIP-3529
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	2	Whether TSTORE fails when gasleft ≤ 2300 has two competing readings that both rest on normative text. The outcome is observable and localized, so expected results need agreement first (level 2). Smaller slips, such as TLOAD "pops the value on top of the stack" where it clearly means pushes, have one evident intended outcome.	eip.md · Specification — "Gas cost for TSTORE is the same as a warm SSTORE of a dirty slot" Defines only the cost; it does not say whether the SSTORE stipend check applies. eip.md · Abstract — "state that behaves identically to storage" Could be read as inheriting all SSTORE restrictions, including the stipend check. supporting/eip-2200.md · Specification — "If gasleft is less than or equal to gas stipend, fail the current call frame with 'out of gas' exception." The competing rule that might or might not apply to TSTORE. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Behavior of transient storage around SELFDESTRUCT and failed CREATE is not discussed. However, the general revert and end-of-transaction discard rules appear to resolve it.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	Only baseline cases that treat 0xb3/0xb4 as undefined or invalid opcodes need updated expectations. That is particular cases within one behavioral family (invalid-opcode handling).	eip.md · Abstract — "TLOAD (0xb3) TSTORE (0xb4)" Two opcode bytes that were undefined become valid instructions. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "does not change behavior of any existing opcodes" No existing opcode behavior changes. Confidence: Medium
New test-framework primitives	1	Testing needs a local extension of existing primitives (new opcode entries in the opcode/bytecode helpers). Observation can reuse existing patterns such as SSTORE-ing TLOAD results and multi-transaction blocks. No new abstraction is architecturally required.	eip.md · Specification — "Two new opcodes are added to EVM, TLOAD (0xb3) and TSTORE (0xb4)" The framework's opcode definitions need the two new instructions. eip.md · Specification — "discarded at the end of the transaction" Transient values are not visible in post-state, so tests must copy them into persistent storage to observe them. Confidence: Medium

Show 20 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes	No existing instruction's specified semantics or availability change. The revert and call-context effects on transient storage are part of the new opcodes' semantics.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "Since this EIP does not change behavior of any existing opcodes" The EIP states that no existing opcode changes. eip.md · Specification — "If a frame reverts, all writes to transient storage ... are reverted" The rollback effect of revert extends to the new store, which is observable only through the new opcodes. Uncertainty: One could argue that REVERT and the CALL family now have extended state effects, which would be level 3. Those effects are observable only through TLOAD/TSTORE.
Added precompiles	None introduced.	eip.md · Specification No precompiles.
Modified precompiles	None modified.	eip.md · Specification No precompiles.
Added system contracts	None introduced.	eip.md · Specification No system contract is defined.
Modified system contracts	None modified.	eip.md · Specification No system contract is referenced.
EVM Gas rule changesUnder-specified	The EIP adds fixed-cost gas-table entries for two new instructions; these are covered under Added opcodes. No accounting mechanism is introduced, and no existing charging, metering or settlement rule changes. The expected gas results of baseline operations do not change.	eip.md · Specification — "Gas cost for TSTORE is the same as a warm SSTORE of a dirty slot ... currently 100 gas" Both new opcodes have a fixed gas cost of 100 and no dynamic component. eip.md · Motivation — "The gas accounting rules are also simpler, since no refunds are required." No refund-counter interaction and no change to the existing gas rules. Uncertainty: The spec does not say whether TSTORE inherits the EIP-2200 rule that a store fails when gasleft is at or below the 2300 stipend. If it does, there is a new gasleft-based metering condition, which would point to level 2.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	Charges are constant, the opcodes take no part in warm/cold or access-list tracking, and no existing opcode's ordering changes. The only failure cases are out-of-gas and a static-context write, and both are exceptional halts with the same observable result whatever their order.	eip.md · Specification — "gas cost of TLOAD is the same as a hot SLOAD" Constant cost with no cold/warm distinction and no access-list participation. eip.md · Abstract — "values of transient storage are never deserialized from storage or serialized to storage" Transient storage does not touch persistent state, so there is no state access to order against a gas charge. Uncertainty: Some might treat TSTORE as a new state-accessing operation that needs an ordering rule (level 2). Because it touches no trie or access list, level 0 is chosen.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob-gas rules are touched.	eip.md · Specification Only EVM opcodes are specified; blobs are not mentioned.
State gas accounting changes	Transient storage never becomes persistent state, and no state-gas charging is added or changed.	eip.md · Specification — "All values in transient storage are discarded at the end of the transaction." Nothing is persisted, so there is no state-write accounting.
New EVM gas refund	No refund mechanism is introduced.	eip.md · Rationale — "it is preferable to have a separate mechanism that does not interact with the refund counter" The EIP explicitly avoids adding any refund.
New transaction types	None introduced.	eip.md · Specification No transaction type is defined.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	No transaction-validity changes.	eip.md · Specification No intrinsic gas or validity rule changes.
New block / header fields	None added.	eip.md · Specification No header field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No schema or codec changes.	eip.md · Abstract — "never deserialized from storage or serialized to storage" No serialized schema is affected.
Block syncing changes	No change to block RLP decoding or structural validation.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "This EIP requires a hard fork to implement." Only execution rules change; block structure is untouched.
New fork activation mechanism	No activation-specific state transition.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "This EIP requires a hard fork to implement." Activation is ordinary rule selection with no state migration.
Engine API changes	No Engine API changes.	eip.md · Specification The Engine API is not mentioned.
Transition-tool interface changes	Transient storage starts empty for every transaction and is discarded at its end, so no t8n field or mechanism change is required.	eip.md · Abstract — "never deserialized from storage or serialized to storage" There is no input or output state for the transition tool to exchange.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Baseline tests need no new assertion, because no new observable output exists outside execution.	eip.md · Specification — "All values in transient storage are discarded at the end of the transaction." Transient storage produces no output in post-state, receipts or headers.
Cryptography	No cryptographic rule changes.	eip.md · Specification No cryptographic operations are introduced.

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 3 · ethspecs/pm@fe2f793b03
Evaluator: Opus 5.5 (claude-opus-5-5) at high effort, one tool-less call per EIP · isolation bubblewrap_claude_p_no_tools_v1
Source record: Frozen research record research/tasks/10-opus-v3-reassessment/retrospective/outputs/assessments/cancun/eip-1153.yaml · sha256 42c6e89a965e
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP: supporting/eip-20.md, supporting/eip-2200.md, supporting/eip-3529.md

Compare EIP-1153 with other assessments All 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.

OP+
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.
PC+
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.
ORD
State-access ordering within opcode execution · not in checklist revision 1
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.
SGAS
State gas accounting changes · not in checklist revision 1
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.
ENC
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.
ACT
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).
T8N
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.).
INV
New invariant on pre-existing tests · not in checklist revision 1
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 · not in checklist revision 1
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.

XEIP
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.
UNSP
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus · not in checklist revision 1
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.