Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-2935: Serve historical block hashes from state

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 2024-04-11Included by cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 24
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2022-05-06 · 9e393a79d9

Scope at the cutoff. The proposal writes each preceding block hash into storage at a reserved address before transaction processing in every block after the configured fork boundary. After a further 256-block delay, it changes BLOCKHASH to return stored hashes for prior fork-era blocks while retaining zero outside the specified range. The proposal explicitly leaves its fork number, tests, and implementation unfinished at the assessment-time revision.

24HighHigh
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 8 criteria affected
Plausible range
20–28 (Medium–High)
Assessment cutoff
2024-04-11 · EIP revision 9e393a79d9 (2022-05-06)
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. Modified opcodes3
  2. New fork activation mechanism3
  3. New invariant on pre-existing tests3
  4. Edge/boundary conditions3

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 state-backed BLOCKHASH lookup does not define whether its internal read has ordinary SLOAD gas, warming, or access-ordering effects, and the protocol-level write does not define initialization or collision semantics for the reserved address. Tests and implementation are TBD, leaving the handling of these observable cases to cross-client agreement.

Plausible total

20–28
recorded score 24 · plausible tiers Medium, High

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)
  • Does BLOCKHASH's state-backed lookup incur storage-access gas or change address/slot warmness, and when is that access recorded relative to its gas charge?
  • What account creation, initialization, and collision rules apply to HISTORY_STORAGE_ADDRESS?
  • Is the block-level sstore an unmetered protocol action, and how must transition tooling represent or assert it?
  • Does FORK_BLKNUM denote the last inactive block or the nominal activation block, given the strict greater-than condition?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • The EIP alternates between describing storage in a contract and using protocol-level sstore(address, key, value) notation without defining contract code or account setup.
  • The historical title says Save historical block hashes in state, while the sealed assignment metadata says Serve historical block hashes from state; the populated assignment provenance is preserved.
  • The opcode switch is delayed until block.number is greater than FORK_BLKNUM plus 256, whereas history storage starts after FORK_BLKNUM.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-2935 Prague / Pectra: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes3At least one existing opcode has a non-gas behavioral change, which is the rubric's binary score-3 condition.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 32-35 After the delay, BLOCKHASH returns stored hashes for a new argument range instead of applying its previous behavior.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 45-47 The EIP explicitly states that the opcode's range is increased.
Confidence: High
New fork activation mechanism3The feature's activation directly initiates a protocol-level state modification at the first active block, satisfying the score-3 anchor; this is not merely initialization of an internal variable.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 27-35 At the first block satisfying block.number greater than FORK_BLKNUM, a new pre-transaction storage modification begins; the opcode transition follows 256 blocks later.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The numeric fork parameter is TBD, and the strict-greater-than wording makes the named boundary one block earlier than the first write.
New invariant on pre-existing testsUnder-specified3Every post-activation block produces an additional state update irrespective of its transactions, so carried-forward block/state tests must account for the history slot and resulting state in addition to their original subject; this is the universal fork-test invariant described by score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 27-35 Every block after the fork boundary performs a pre-transaction write of the preceding block hash to the reserved address.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The EIP does not provide tests or specify which fixture formats directly assert the resulting state.
Edge/boundary conditions3Multiple off-by-one-prone boundaries interact: before/at/after activation, before/at/after the 256-block delay, and arguments below, at, within, or beyond the allowed interval. Their cross-product requires an elevated case set, matching score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 27-35 The rules contain a strict fork-block boundary, a second boundary 256 blocks later, and lower and upper bounds on the BLOCKHASH argument.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 45-47 The old 256-block window must remain unchanged while the accessible range expands.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The exact FORK_BLKNUM value is TBD, but the relative boundaries are explicit.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified3A formerly history-only opcode now performs a state-backed lookup whose gas/access side effects can be observed by constructed executions, yet those effects are not determined. This makes newly observable behavior consensus-critical and requires cross-client baselining, matching score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-35 The EIP uses sstore and sload-like notation for protocol and opcode behavior without specifying gas charging, access-list effects, account initialization, or collision handling at the reserved address.
  • eip.md · Test Cases and Implementation, lines 49-55 Both test cases and implementation are explicitly TBD at this revision.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: It is unclear whether sload denotes an ordinary EVM-style access with warming and gas consequences or only an implementation-level raw state lookup; the system-address account semantics are also unstated.
Added system contracts2This is one new stateful system contract/address, which directly matches the score-2 anchor for a single stateful system contract.
  • eip.md · Simple Summary and Specification, lines 12-15 and 25-35 The proposal calls for a contract at a reserved address whose storage receives a new block-hash slot in every post-boundary block.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The text specifies storage at the address but does not define deployed code or account initialization details.
Security risksUnder-specified2The mechanism touches a limited but consensus-critical set of components: block processing, state, and an opcode whose values may be consumed by contracts and light-client schemes. Targeted review and adversarial testing are warranted, matching score 2 rather than an extensive multi-component redesign.
  • eip.md · Motivation, lines 16-23 The returned historical hashes are intended to support historical-data protocols and more secure light-client constructions.
  • eip.md · Specification and Security Considerations, lines 25-35 and 57-59 Correctness spans pre-transaction state mutation, stored block hashes, changed opcode results, and persistent state growth.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The Security Considerations section discusses state growth but does not analyze incorrect or mutable history entries, reserved-address behavior, or opcode-read side effects.
Performance risks2Cumulative state growth and a mandatory write on every block cannot be assessed wholly as an isolated opcode microbenchmark, but the proposal characterizes the impact as limited relative to existing state; this fits score 2.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 57-59 The EIP estimates about 2.5 million additional storage slots per year and acknowledges state bloat, while characterizing it as small relative to existing state.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 32-35 A state write occurs every block and qualifying BLOCKHASH executions perform a state read.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: No benchmarks or quantitative processing-cost analysis are supplied.
State-access ordering within opcode executionUnder-specified1A single existing opcode acquires a state access, so its execution path and the position of that access relative to gas charging must be settled; this matches the single-opcode score-1 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 32-35 BLOCKHASH, previously described as history-accessing, is changed to obtain qualifying results through sload at the reserved address.
  • rubric.md · State-access ordering within opcode execution, lines 27-40 The anchor assigns one point when the state-access or gas-charge ordering of a single opcode changes.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The EIP specifies the returned value but not whether the read has ordinary SLOAD access-ordering or access-list side effects.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified1Existing tests that assume old BLOCKHASH results beyond 256 blocks form a narrow subset requiring changed expectations; most opcode behavior remains unchanged, fitting the minor-subset anchor.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 45-47 BLOCKHASH gains a larger range while behavior in the previous 256-block range is intended to remain unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 32-35 Only BLOCKHASH cases outside its former range and post-fork block processing receive changed behavior.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The Test Cases section is TBD, so the exact inventory of affected existing vectors is not described.
Cross-EIP interactions1The relationship to two identified predecessor designs and an unidentified future history-accumulator transition is limited and non-critical to independent testing of this EIP, matching score 1 rather than a coordinated dependency score.
  • eip.md · Rationale, lines 36-43 The proposal identifies EIP-98 and EIP-210 as earlier similar designs and deliberately removes their tree structure and EVM-code approach.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 57-59 The mechanism is described as temporary because a future eth1/eth2 merge and built-in history accumulator would likely repurpose BLOCKHASH.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The future merge/history-accumulator interaction is described without an EIP number, so no number is inferred.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-98, EIP-210
Show 17 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is added, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Simple Summary, lines 12-15 The proposal modifies the existing BLOCKHASH opcode and assigns no new opcode number.
Added precompiles0No precompile is introduced, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Simple Summary and Specification, lines 12-35 The proposal uses a protocol-managed storage address and modifies BLOCKHASH; it defines no callable precompile.
Modified precompiles0No pre-existing precompile is modified, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Simple Summary and Specification, lines 12-35 No existing precompile or precompile gas schedule is named or changed.
Modified system contracts0The proposal adds its own stateful system address rather than modifying a pre-existing system contract, so the zero anchor applies.
  • eip.md · Simple Summary and Specification, lines 12-15 and 25-35 The history-storage address is introduced for this mechanism; no pre-existing system contract is named or altered.
EVM Gas rule changesUnder-specified0No EVM gas accounting change is specified, so the score follows the zero anchor; uncertainty about how the newly mentioned storage read participates in gas accounting is recorded separately as under-specification.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-35 The specification introduces a block-level storage write and changes the value returned by BLOCKHASH, but states no opcode gas-cost or gas-accounting rule.
Uncertainty: The text does not state whether the internal storage read changes BLOCKHASH gas charging.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob gas accounting rule is introduced or modified, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Simple Summary and Specification, lines 12-35 The proposal is confined to historical block-hash storage and BLOCKHASH behavior and introduces no blob mechanism.
State gas accounting changes0A state write alone does not trigger this anchor's separate state-gas-accounting category; no such accounting mechanism is specified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-35 Although the proposal writes state, it defines no state-gas rate, budget, reservoir, charging site, or execution-gas spill rule.
New EVM gas refund0No new EVM gas-refund mechanism is introduced, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-35 The two specified operations contain no refund rule or refund-producing condition.
New transaction types0No new transaction type is introduced, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-35 The proposal defines no transaction envelope or transaction type.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0No existing transaction validity rule or intrinsic gas calculation is modified, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-35 The pre-transaction history write and BLOCKHASH behavior add no transaction validity or intrinsic-gas condition.
New block / header fields0No new block/header field is introduced, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-35 The rule consumes the existing previous-block hash and block number and adds no block or header field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No RLP, SSZ, or other transaction/block/interface encoding change is introduced, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-35 The changes concern state storage and opcode lookup and introduce no transaction, block, or interface encoding.
Block syncing changes0No block-RLP validation mechanism requiring sync testing is introduced, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-35 The proposal changes block processing and an opcode but adds no block RLP field or RLP validation rule.
Engine API changes0The EIP introduces no Engine API change, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-35 No Engine API endpoint, field, or communication mechanism appears in the specified changes.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified0No transition-tool interface field or communication mechanism is specified, matching the zero anchor, even though the transition implementation must perform a new action.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 27-35 The operation uses block number and previous hash already named in block processing and defines no new external transition-tool field.
Uncertainty: The EIP does not discuss transition-tool inputs or whether fork-activation awareness would require an interface extension.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified0The text establishes no need for a new expectation, modifier, or reusable framework primitive; existing block, state, and opcode assertions appear sufficient, so the zero anchor is best supported.
  • eip.md · Specification and Test Cases, lines 25-35 and 49-51 The behavior is expressible as block processing, storage state, and opcode output, while the proposal requests no new test abstraction and leaves cases TBD.
Uncertainty: With test cases absent, a minor helper for the pre-transaction system write could later prove useful.
Cryptography0Using already-produced block hashes as values does not introduce or modify cryptographic functionality, so the zero anchor applies.
  • eip.md · Simple Summary and Specification, lines 12-35 The EIP stores and retrieves existing block hashes but defines no hashing algorithm or other cryptographic mechanism.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@9e393a79d9 EIPS/eip-2935.md committed 2022-05-06 · information cutoff 2024-04-11
Current master · File history · blob bbe12f21b0 · sha256 bcdb09d0585a
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-2935.yaml · sha256 a18299f49995
Compare EIP-2935 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.