Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-2537: Precompile for BLS12-381 curve operations

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

RetrospectivePrague / PectraAssessment cutoff 2024-01-18Included by cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 16
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2023-06-22 · ef0a1320a0

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, EIP-2537 proposed nine precompiles at addresses 0x0c through 0x14 for BLS12-381 G1/G2 addition, multiplication, multiexponentiation, pairing, and field-to-curve mapping. It specified field and point encodings, call ABIs, validation and error behavior, and fixed or input-length-dependent gas schedules. The mapping algorithms were delegated to a separately linked document that is not present in the sealed package, while two sections gave conflicting pairing gas formulas.

16MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 6 criteria affected
Plausible range
15–20 (Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2024-01-18 · EIP revision ef0a1320a0 (2023-06-22)
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. Added precompiles4
  2. Edge/boundary conditions3
  3. EVM Gas rule changes2
  4. Cryptography2

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 packaged EIP does not contain the algorithms and parameters needed to determine the outputs of its two mapping precompiles, instead referring to a separate document. It also gives two incompatible pairing gas formulas and leaves the activation block as X. The first two gaps require a normative resolution before complete cross-client vectors can be baselined.

Plausible total

15–20
recorded score 16 · plausible tiers Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)
  • Which algorithm and parameter set normatively determines the outputs of BLS12_MAP_FP_TO_G1 and BLS12_MAP_FP2_TO_G2?
  • Is the pairing gas cost 43000*k + 65000 or 23000*k + 115000?
  • Which activation block replaces X?
  • Does invalid input return only call failure with all supplied gas burned, or is any output-data convention also required?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • The EIP's main pairing-price section conflicts with its later gas-calculation pseudocode.
  • The normative field-to-curve content is outside the packaged historical text.
  • The text mandates an error for invalid inputs but does not explicitly define an output-data convention for failure.
  • EIP-1962 is named as an implementation code basis, not as a protocol dependency.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-2537 Prague / Pectra: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added precompilesExceptional4The EIP is well beyond the anchor-3 threshold of multiple precompiles with at least one complex member: it adds nine ABIs, three variable-length operations, two field encodings, and several different output and validation rules.

Exceptional score: Nine distinct precompiles, including three complex dynamic-input operations and two externally specified mappings, materially exceed the quantity and test-surface represented by the ordinary score-3 anchor.

  • eip.md · Abstract and Proposed addresses table, lines 18-28 and 34-46 Nine separately addressed precompiles are introduced for distinct G1, G2, pairing, and mapping operations.
  • eip.md · ABI for operations and Gas schedule, lines 118-215 and 245-310 The precompiles have multiple input and output shapes, and three accept variable-length input with dynamic gas.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The field-to-curve behavior cannot be fully evaluated because its linked specification is absent.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3Several independent boundary-prone mechanisms are introduced, and the variable-length calls require an elevated matrix across lengths, partial slices, discount thresholds, validity, and gas. This matches anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Fine points and encoding of base elements, lines 88-116 Inputs must cover modulus limits, zero-padding, Fp2 coefficient order, infinity encoding, unrestricted scalars, and rejection of empty variable-length input.
  • eip.md · Gas schedule, lines 245-310 Dynamic costs add pair-count floor division, invalid partial slices, a 128-entry discount boundary and cap, and zero-pair handling.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The absent mapping specification may contain additional edge cases beyond those scoreable here.
EVM Gas rule changesUnder-specified2The EIP introduces new gas-cost functions for new precompiles, including dynamic accounting, without changing an existing gas mechanism. This matches anchor 2.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 18-28 The proposal assigns fixed costs to six new precompiles and formula-based costs to three new precompiles.
  • eip.md · Gas schedule clarifications for the variable-length input, lines 271-310 Multiexponentiation and pairing receive new input-length-based gas functions with explicit floor-division behavior.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The two stated pairing gas formulas conflict, but both establish that a new dynamic gas rule is intended.
CryptographyUnder-specified2The proposal introduces multiple distinct cryptographic mechanisms—curve arithmetic, multiexponentiation, pairing, and mapping—on a fully parameterized named curve. They are presented as established mechanisms with property tests and reference implementations, matching anchor 2 rather than the novel-mechanism anchor.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 18-32 Nine calls expose G1 and G2 arithmetic, multiexponentiation, pairing, and two field-to-curve mappings for BLS and SNARK verification.
  • eip.md · Specification and Test Cases, lines 54-84 and 334-351 The EIP fixes BLS12-381 parameters and supplies algebraic properties for testing group and pairing operations.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The unavailable mapping document prevents assessing the mapping algorithm's completeness and resource base directly.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2Tests cannot baseline the mapping outputs from the packaged EIP alone, and clients must choose between incompatible normative pairing gas formulas. These material but localized issues require agreement before vectors can be authoritative, matching anchor 2.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Field to curve mapping, lines 30 and 330-332 The two mapping precompiles depend on algorithms and parameters contained only in a separately linked document.
  • eip.md · Pairing operation and Gas schedule clarifications for pairing, lines 259-261 and 295-310 The document specifies pairing cost once as 43000*k + 65000 and later as 23000*k + 115000.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The activation placeholder X is also unresolved, although fork configuration could supply it without changing operation semantics.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1Existing tests that call one of the nine newly assigned addresses as an ordinary account can change at activation, but this is a narrow, address-specific subset. That limited reworking matches anchor 1.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Proposed addresses table, lines 18-28 and 34-46 Fork activation introduces precompile behavior at nine specified addresses.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 320-322 The EIP states that there are no backward-compatibility questions.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The EIP asserts compatibility but does not inventory pre-existing tests using the assigned addresses.
Security risksUnder-specified1Incorrect cryptographic validation could create security or consensus risk, but the mechanisms are isolated behind new precompile calls and do not alter an existing protocol invariant. This matches anchor 1.
  • eip.md · ABI for pairing and Important notes, lines 182-197 and 324-332 Pairing inputs require curve and subgroup validation, and the EIP makes subgroup checks mandatory while recommending faster methods.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 364-368 The EIP identifies consensus implications of deviating from the specification and explicitly permits non-constant-time algorithms.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The missing mapping specification and contradictory pairing pricing prevent complete isolated review of all security and resource-exhaustion behavior.
Performance risksUnder-specified1The new cryptographic calls require benchmarking, but each precompile can be benchmarked in isolation and does not modify existing performance paths. This matches anchor 1.
  • eip.md · DDoS protection and Gas schedule, lines 221-249 Prices are tied to computational time and worst cases, and multiexponentiation pricing assumes a particular efficient algorithm.
  • eip.md · Benchmarking test cases, lines 353-355 The EIP calls for dedicated benchmark vectors for new implementations.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The linked benchmark vectors and mapping algorithms are not in the sealed package, limiting validation of the pricing assumptions.
Show 20 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is added, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 18-30 Functionality is introduced through precompile addresses rather than new opcode assignments.
Modified opcodes0Adding new precompile targets does not modify or deprecate an existing opcode under this anchor, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Gas burinig on error, lines 217-219 The new precompiles are invoked through existing CALL or STATICCALL behavior; the text does not change either opcode's result rules generally.
Modified precompiles0No existing precompile logic or gas schedule is modified, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Motivation and Proposed addresses table, lines 34-50 New addresses are assigned for BLS12-381; the existing BN254 precompile is mentioned only as a security comparison.
Added system contracts0Precompiles do not constitute added system contracts under this anchor, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Proposed addresses table, lines 18-28 and 34-46 The nine new address-bound mechanisms are explicitly precompiles, not deployed system contracts.
Modified system contracts0No pre-existing system contract code, state, or behavior is modified, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 18-30 The scope contains only new precompiles and does not identify any existing system contract.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode state access or gas-charge ordering relative to state access is changed, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 18-30 The change consists of stateless curve-operation precompiles and describes no state access.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob gas accounting is introduced or modified, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 18-30 The proposal is limited to curve-operation precompiles and their execution-gas prices; it introduces no blob mechanism.
State gas accounting changes0The proposal adds no state write cost, state-gas budget, reservoir, or spill rule, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 18-30 All introduced operations compute cryptographic results and no operation writes state.
New EVM gas refund0No gas-refund mechanism is introduced, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Gas burinig on error, lines 217-219 A failed call burns all gas supplied with CALL or STATICCALL; no refund is specified.
New transaction types0No transaction type is introduced, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 18-30 The proposal adds callable precompiles and does not define a transaction envelope or type.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Existing transaction validity and intrinsic-gas rules are unchanged, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · ABI for operations, lines 118-215 Validation rules apply to precompile call data and curve inputs, not to transaction validity or intrinsic gas.
New block / header fields0No new block or block-header field is introduced, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 18-30 The proposal activates address-bound execution behavior without adding a block or header field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0These precompile input ABIs do not change transaction, block, or protocol-interface RLP/SSZ encoding, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Fine points and encoding of base elements, lines 88-112 The only new encodings are call-data representations for field elements, points, infinity, and scalars.
Block syncing changes0No block RLP validation mechanism is introduced, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 18-30 The proposal adds execution precompiles and no block RLP field or validation rule.
New fork activation mechanism0Activation enables new functionality but performs no state or existing internal-variable modification at the activation block, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 18-19 The nine precompiles become available when the block number reaches a placeholder activation value.
Uncertainty: The activation value is left as X, but that does not create the state-modification mechanism scored by this anchor.
Engine API changes0No Engine API communication change is introduced, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 18-30 The change is wholly within execution precompile calls and defines no Engine API field or endpoint.
Transition-tool interface changes0No transition-tool interface field or mechanism is required by the proposal, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 18-30 Activation and operation are defined within execution using fixed precompile addresses; no external transition-tool field is defined.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Tests unrelated to this EIP gain no new invariant to assert, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Test Cases, lines 334-355 The listed assertions are properties and benchmarks for the new curve operations, not added assertions for unrelated tests.
New test-framework primitives0The proposal establishes a large test-data space but does not require a new test-framework primitive, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Test Cases, lines 334-355 Testing is expressed as ordinary operation properties and externally supplied benchmark vectors, with no new expectation or modifier abstraction specified.
Uncertainty: The EIP does not describe the test framework, so this score assumes its stated properties can be represented by existing call and assertion primitives.
Cross-EIP interactions0The protocol proposal neither depends on, modifies, nor conflicts with another numbered EIP. Reuse of EIP-1962 implementation code is not a protocol-level interaction, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility and Reference Implementation, lines 320-322 and 357-362 The EIP states no backward-compatibility issue; EIP-1962 is mentioned only as a source-code basis for one implementation.
Uncertainty: Existing BN254 and Blake2f precompiles are cited as comparisons or precedents, but the text specifies no dependency on or modification to them.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@ef0a1320a0 EIPS/eip-2537.md committed 2023-06-22 · information cutoff 2024-01-18
Current master · File history · blob 14b9858c8e · sha256 01f59dd7a868
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/prague/eip-2537.yaml · sha256 85850ca607bd
Compare EIP-2537 with other assessmentsAll Prague / Pectra 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.