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 17
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. This revision of EIP-2537 adds nine native precompiles at addresses 0x0c–0x14 for BLS12-381 operations: G1 and G2 addition, multiplication and multiexponentiation, pairing, and mapping Fp to G1 and Fp2 to G2. It defines strict byte encodings: 64-byte padded field elements that must be less than the modulus, (0,0) as the point at infinity, and 32-byte scalars that are not reduced. Every operation has its own error cases, and an error burns all supplied gas. Six precompiles have constant gas. The two multiexponentiation precompiles use a discount table for k up to 128, and pairing has a per-pair formula; all three compute k with floor division on the input length. The pairing call must perform subgroup checks. Activation is a plain block-number condition.

17MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 4 criteria affected
Plausible range
15–18 (Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2024-01-18 · EIP revision ef0a1320a0 (2023-06-22)
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.

Top complexity drivers

  1. Added precompiles4
  2. Edge/boundary conditions3
  3. Cryptography3
  4. Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2

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 pairing gas formula appears twice with different values, 43000*k+65000 and 23000*k+115000. The field-to-curve mapping algorithm and the benchmark vectors are in separate documents that were not supplied. Whether add, mul and multiexponentiation need subgroup checks is only implied by their error-case lists.

Plausible total

15–18
recorded score 17 · plausible tiers Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)
  • Which pairing gas formula is normative: 43000*k + 65000 or 23000*k + 115000?
  • Must G1/G2 mul and multiexponentiation reject points that are on the curve but not in the subgroup?
  • What exact SWU and isogeny parameters and cofactor-clearing steps do the mapping precompiles use? The referenced document was not supplied.
  • The multiexponentiation gas function returns 0 for inputs shorter than one pair. Is the order of the gas check and the error for empty input observable beyond the burned gas?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • Contradictory pairing gas formulas between the Gas schedule section and the gas schedule clarifications.
  • The mapping precompiles depend on an external field_to_curve.md that was not supplied.
  • Subgroup checks are mandatory only for pairing, and the requirement for the other operations is implicit.
  • The text says multiexponentiation 'must' use Pippenger's algorithm. That is an implementation detail with no observable consensus effect.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-2537 Prague / Pectra: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added precompilesExceptional4Several precompiles are added and at least one is complex, which meets level 3. The supplied scope goes well beyond that condition: nine distinct addresses, three of them complex with dynamic gas and their own validation and gas formulas.

Exceptional score: Level 3 needs only multiple precompiles with at least one complex. This EIP adds nine distinct addresses. Each has its own encoding, output and error rules. Three take variable-length input with dynamic gas: two use a 128-entry discount table and pairing uses a per-pair formula. That is roughly nine separate per-precompile test families of validity, error, gas and boundary cases, plus three dynamic-gas families. This is substantially more testing work within this criterion than the level-3 condition requires.

  • eip.md · Proposed addresses table Nine distinct precompile addresses, 0x0c to 0x14.
  • eip.md · Gas schedule clarifications for the variable-length input G1 multiexponentiation, G2 multiexponentiation and pairing take variable-length input and have dynamic gas.
  • eip.md · ABI for operations Each precompile has its own input length, output format and error cases.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Whether nine precompiles justify the exceptional level is a judgment call. Level 3 is the conservative alternative.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3There are several independent boundary-sensitive rules: the field-element range and padding, exact or multiple-of input length, empty input, infinity encoding, scalars at or above the group order, the discount-table cap at k=128, and on-curve versus subgroup membership. The multiexponentiation and pairing gas rules form an elevated matrix. Input length (exact multiple, non-multiple, empty, k=0) interacts with the floor-division gas formula, the gas supplied relative to that cost, and the later encoding error. Together these decide whether the call fails on gas or on encoding, and they cannot be tested independently.
  • eip.md · Field elements encoding Field elements must be less than the modulus and the top 16 bytes must be zero. Otherwise the precompile returns an error.
  • eip.md · Behavior on empty inputs Variable-length operations must return an error on empty input.
  • eip.md · Gas schedule clarifications for G1/G2 Multiexponentiation k = floor(len/LEN_PER_PAIR). The gas cost is 0 when k is 0. Lengths that are not divisible still produce a gas value but then error.
  • eip.md · G1/G2 Multiexponentiation The discount table covers k up to 128, with max_discount used above that.
  • eip.md · Encoding of scalars for multiplication operation Scalars are not reduced. Scalars at or above the group order are valid.
Confidence: Medium
CryptographyUnder-specified3Several cryptographic mechanisms are added: group arithmetic in two groups, multiexponentiation, pairing with subgroup checks, and SWU map-to-curve. Some behavior differs from standard library APIs. Mapping is only a partial hash-to-curve. Add, mul and multiexponentiation accept on-curve points without subgroup checks. Infinity is encoded as (0,0) with 64-byte padding. These cases need vectors built specifically for this EIP, beyond established resources. That meets level 3.
  • eip.md · Abstract Adds G1/G2 addition, multiplication, multiexponentiation, pairing and two field-to-curve mappings.
  • eip.md · Abstract - "Mapping function does NOT perform mapping of the byte string into field element" The mapping exposes only the field-to-curve step of SWU, defined in a separate document that was not supplied.
  • eip.md · Subgroup checks - "Subgroup check **is mandatory** during the pairing call" Subgroup checks are required only for pairing. The add, mul and multiexponentiation error cases list only on-curve checks.
  • eip.md · Benchmarking test cases Benchmark vectors are in a separate file that was not supplied.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The test resources and the mapping specification are in documents that were not supplied. If established vectors cover these exact behaviors, level 2 would apply.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2The two pairing gas formulas give different, observable gas results for the same input. Expected values cannot be fixed until the specification is clarified or clients agree. The contradiction is localized to one precompile, which fits level 2.
  • eip.md · Pairing operation - "`43000*k + 65000`" Gives the pairing gas formula as 43000*k + 65000.
  • eip.md · Gas schedule clarifications for pairing - "gas_cost = 23000*k + 115000" Gives a different normative pairing gas formula, which contradicts the first.
  • eip.md · Field to curve mapping The SWU algorithm and parameters are in a separate document that was not supplied.
  • eip.md · ABI for G1 multiplication The error cases list on-curve checks only. Subgroup checks are not explicitly ruled in or out for mul and multiexponentiation.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The missing mapping document is an evidence gap, not an omission in this specification.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1The only rework is in baseline cases that treat 0x0c–0x14 as non-precompile or empty accounts. Examples are precompile-range boundary tests and cold/warm access cases that target those addresses. This rework is confined to address-boundary cases within one family.
  • eip.md · Proposed addresses table Addresses 0x0c–0x14 become precompiles. Before this change they were ordinary empty accounts.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: How many baseline vectors use these addresses cannot be estimated without a suite.
New test-framework primitives1Tests need BLS12-381 point and field encoding helpers to build precompile inputs and expected outputs. This is a local extension of the existing kind of precompile-input helper, not a new abstraction.
  • eip.md · Fine points and encoding of base elements Defines custom 64-byte Fp, 128-byte Fp2, 128/256-byte G1/G2 and 32-byte scalar encodings.
  • eip.md · Test Cases Expected results are given as algebraic properties, so tests must be able to construct and encode points.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Whether existing helpers are available is unknown. The score reflects architectural need only.
Security risks1The new security conditions are input validation, on-curve and subgroup checks, and worst-case gas. All of them sit inside the precompiles and can be checked locally, for example by differential fuzzing. No other component's assumptions change.
  • eip.md · Field elements encoding Strict range and padding checks on field elements.
  • eip.md · Subgroup checks Pairing requires subgroup checks. The other operations check only that points are on the curve.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations - "**IS NOT REQUIRED** to perform all the operations using constant time" Constant-time implementation is explicitly not required.
Confidence: Medium
Performance risksUnder-specified1Each precompile's worst case needs component benchmarks to confirm pricing. That includes the multiexponentiation discount table up to and beyond k=128, pairing per pair, and the mapping operations. The workload is CPU-bound inside each precompile and does not change baseline end-to-end assumptions.
  • eip.md · Gas schedule - "Assuming a constant `30 MGas/second`" Prices assume 30 Mgas/s throughput.
  • eip.md · DDoS protection The gas schedule must reflect worst-case computation time.
  • eip.md · Subgroup checks Pairing pricing assumes a fast subgroup check of about 35000 gas per pair.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The pairing gas formulas contradict each other, so the pricing to benchmark is uncertain.
Cross-EIP interactions1The interactions are local compatibility checks. New precompile addresses must be treated as warm precompiles under the baseline access-list rules. Calls must behave correctly across call types with the existing gas-forwarding rules. Otherwise the target can be tested on its own.
  • eip.md · Gas burinig on error - "supplied along with a `CALL` or `STATICCALL`" Precompile behavior is reached through the existing call instructions and their gas forwarding.
  • eip.md · Gas schedule clarifications for G1/G2 Multiexponentiation - "already used in `Blake2f` precompile" Cites the existing zero-gas precedent, the Blake2f precompile, for comparison only.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The interacting EIPs are not named in the document, and no candidate EIPs were supplied.
Show 19 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No new instructions.
  • eip.md · Abstract Adds precompiles only, no opcodes.
Modified opcodes0New callee behavior reached through unchanged instructions does not count as an opcode change.
  • eip.md · Gas burinig on error CALL and STATICCALL semantics are unchanged; only the callee behavior is new.
Modified precompiles0No existing precompile changes.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility - "There are no backward compatibility questions." Existing precompiles are untouched. BN254 is mentioned only for comparison.
Added system contracts0No system contracts are added.
  • eip.md · Proposed addresses table Only native precompiles are added.
Modified system contracts0No existing system contract changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contracts are involved.
EVM Gas rule changes0No execution-gas charging, metering or settlement rule changes. The new precompile fees are ordinary per-function costs and are assessed under Added precompiles. Gas burning on error copies existing precompile behavior.
  • eip.md · Gas schedule Gives fixed and formula-based gas costs for each new precompile. These are per-precompile fees, not changes to execution-gas accounting rules.
  • eip.md · Gas burinig on error - "Following the current state of all other precompiles" Burning all gas on a precompile error is the existing behavior, applied here to the new precompiles.
Uncertainty: Under the baseline's existing warm-precompile rule, adding precompile addresses changes cold/warm gas for calls to 0x0c–0x14. That is an existing rule applied to new addresses and is scored under PAT, not here.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No instruction's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes, and the precompiles need no ordering rule.
  • eip.md · Abstract The precompiles are pure computations on calldata and do not access state.
Blob gas accounting changes0Blob-gas accounting is unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification Nothing about blobs or blob gas.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No state-writing cost changes.
New EVM gas refund0No refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Gas schedule Gas costs only; no refunds are mentioned.
New transaction types0No new envelope.
  • eip.md · Specification No new transaction type.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Transaction validity is unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification No intrinsic-gas or transaction-validity rule changes.
New block / header fields0No header changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No header fields are added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No listed protocol object or interface changes its schema. Precompile input encoding is calldata.
  • eip.md · Fine points and encoding of base elements New encodings apply only to precompile calldata and outputs, not to protocol objects.
Block syncing changes0No block RLP or structural validation changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No changes to block structure or decoding.
New fork activation mechanism0No activation-specific state transition is required.
  • eip.md · Abstract - "If `block.number >= X`" Activation is a plain rule selection. There is no state migration and no code installation.
Engine API changes0No Engine API changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Engine API is not mentioned.
Transition-tool interface changes0No transition-tool interface change is required.
  • eip.md · Abstract - "If `block.number >= X`" The precompiles are fork-gated and need no new transition-tool inputs or outputs.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Baseline tests need no new assertion.
  • eip.md · Specification No new log, receipt, header or commitment outputs.
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 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/prague/eip-2537.yaml · sha256 58ffc39a4dee
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 · 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 · 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.

  • 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 · 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.