Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-3860: Limit and meter initcode

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

RetrospectiveShanghai / ShapellaAssessment cutoff 2022-02-04Included by cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 23
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2022-02-03 · d38a4add0c

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, EIP-3860 extended EIP-170 with a 49,152-byte maximum for initcode supplied by creation transactions, CREATE, and CREATE2. It also charged 2 gas per 32-byte initcode word through transaction intrinsic gas and through an extra opcode charge taken before address calculation and initcode execution. Oversized creation transactions became invalid, while an oversized CREATE or CREATE2 returned zero; the stated purpose was to meter linear jump-destination analysis and bound its resource exposure.

23HighHigh
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 5 criteria affected
Plausible range
21–23 (Medium–High)
Assessment cutoff
2022-02-04 · EIP revision d38a4add0c (2022-02-03)
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. EVM Gas rule changes3
  3. Edge/boundary conditions3
  4. State-access ordering within opcode execution2

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 proposal does not fully order an oversized CREATE or CREATE2 size check against the new initcode charge and the pre-existing memory-expansion, base creation, and CREATE2 hash charges. It also leaves the backwards-compatibility reference to includable over-limit transactions insufficiently explicit about whether those are call transactions that reach an opcode rather than creation transactions prohibited by the new validity rule.

Plausible total

21–23
recorded score 23 · plausible tiers Medium, High

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (2)
  • On an over-limit CREATE or CREATE2, which of the new initcode charge, memory-expansion gas, base creation gas, and CREATE2 hashcost is deducted before zero is pushed?
  • Does the backwards-compatibility statement about includable over-limit transactions refer only to non-creation transactions whose execution invokes CREATE or CREATE2?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (2)
  • The opcode oversize-result rule and the opcode gas-charge rule do not specify a complete failure-path ordering.
  • The backwards-compatibility phrase about over-limit transactions remaining includable is ambiguous unless read as referring to call transactions that execute CREATE or CREATE2.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-3860 Shanghai / Shapella: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes3At least two pre-existing opcodes gain a non-gas behavioral failure condition. The rubric's binary modified-opcode anchor therefore requires score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification — Rules, lines 53-58 CREATE and CREATE2 newly push zero when their initcode length exceeds the maximum, in addition to receiving a gas change.
  • eip.md · Rationale — How to report initcode limit violation?, lines 93-95 The zero-result behavior was deliberately chosen as a creation-instruction error outcome instead of exceptional abort.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The gas consumed before the new zero result is not fully ordered, but the behavioral modification itself is explicit.
EVM Gas rule changesUnder-specified3This is a new gas-accounting mechanism applied through existing transaction intrinsic-gas and opcode-gas mechanisms, including the pre-existing CREATE2 hashcost path. It therefore affects existing mechanisms and their tests, matching score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification — Parameters and Rules, lines 42-58 The proposal defines a new per-word initcode cost, adds it to creation- transaction intrinsic gas, and charges it to CREATE and CREATE2 before address calculation and initcode execution.
  • supporting/eip-1014.md · Specification, lines 11-15 CREATE2 already has a per-word hashcost deducted with its existing creation charges, so the proposed initcode charge changes an established dynamic-gas path.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The exact charge ordering for an over-limit CREATE or CREATE2 is not fully explicit, but that does not change the anchor level.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3Multiple independent boundaries—word rounding, maximum size, gas sufficiency, and transaction-versus-opcode failure—combine across three creation paths. The resulting cross-product requires an elevated case count, matching score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification — Parameters and Rules, lines 42-58 The charge rounds initcode length up by 32-byte words, the size cap is a strict greater-than check, intrinsic gas can make a transaction invalid, and opcode oversize failure has a different zero-result outcome.
  • eip.md · Test Cases, lines 111-118 The proposed matrix explicitly crosses sufficient and insufficient gas with exact-limit and limit-plus-one lengths over a creation transaction, CREATE, and CREATE2.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Gas consumption for the over-limit opcode path is not completely ordered, so some expected outcomes cannot be fixed from the text alone.
State-access ordering within opcode executionUnder-specified2The new up-front charge changes the gas-boundary path before address-derived state work for two state-affecting opcodes. This is a multiple-opcode ordering consequence, but it does not redefine recordable access or a broad opcode class, matching score 2.
  • eip.md · Specification — Rules, lines 53-58 Both CREATE and CREATE2 receive a new charge that must be deducted before calculation of the resulting contract address and before execution of the initcode.
  • supporting/eip-1014.md · Specification, lines 13-15 CREATE2's existing hashcost is deducted before evaluation of its resulting address and initcode, identifying the existing execution point with which the new charge is combined.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The proposal fixes the new charge relative to address calculation and initcode execution, but does not completely order the oversize check, memory expansion, base creation charge, and CREATE2 hashcost against one another.
New or modified transaction validity mechanismsUnder-specified2Two existing creation-transaction validity calculations change and existing cases need updated boundary expectations, but the changes are localized and require no test-infrastructure redesign. This matches score 2.
  • eip.md · Specification — Rules, lines 53-56 A creation transaction is newly invalid above the initcode-size cap, and its intrinsic gas formula newly includes the rounded initcode charge so insufficient gas also makes it invalid.
  • eip.md · Test Cases, lines 111-118 The requested transaction cases exercise both intrinsic-gas sufficiency and exact size-limit validity boundaries.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The backwards-compatibility wording about some over-limit transactions being includable is not explicit about whether it means call transactions that invoke a creation opcode rather than creation transactions themselves.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2Existing tests across the focused contract-creation category must be reworked for changed gas and failure outcomes. The affected category is considerable but bounded rather than a diverse major share of all tests, matching score 2.
  • eip.md · Specification — Rules, lines 53-58 Existing creation transactions gain both a validity limit and higher intrinsic gas, while existing CREATE and CREATE2 executions gain a size failure and an additional dynamic charge.
  • eip.md · Test Cases, lines 111-118 The requested cases span creation transactions and both creation opcodes at gas and maximum-size boundaries.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The package does not enumerate the pre-existing test corpus, so the precise proportion of tests requiring updates is uncertain.
Security risks2Correctness affects a limited set of critical creation paths and changes both resource-exhaustion assumptions and failure behavior for dependent factory designs. This calls for targeted security review and fuzzing, matching score 2 rather than a broad multi-component score 3.
  • eip.md · Motivation, lines 22-38 The proposal responds to an unmetered, unbounded linear analysis cost and notes that cheap generated initcode had enabled malicious constructions.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 103-109 The change is expected to harden clients against analysis attacks, but it creates previously absent failure modes for layer-2 factory patterns and multi-level deployment hierarchies.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The historical text states that the authors did not know whether affected multi-level factory contracts existed, so the practical exposure was uncertain at the cutoff.
Performance risks2Performance validation must cover implementation-specific analysis costs and end-to-end repeated creation workloads, so it is not fully captured by a single isolated arithmetic benchmark. The impact remains confined to contract creation rather than broad execution, matching score 2.
  • eip.md · Motivation, lines 22-38 Jump-destination analysis scales linearly with initcode length, was unmetered and unbounded, and could be amplified through programmatically generated initcode in CREATE and CREATE2.
  • eip.md · Rationale — Gas cost constant and size limit, lines 62-83 The gas constant is selected from differing implementation worst-case benchmarks, while the size bound is intended to make worst-case estimation tractable.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 103-109 The proposal estimates a block-level workload of roughly 1.3 GB of analyzed initcode under the then-current gas limit and a substantial added gas cost after the change.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The package reports benchmark results but does not define a normative performance-validation matrix across implementations and workload shapes.
Cross-EIP interactions2The proposal depends directly on EIP-170's limit and modifies the gas path established by EIP-1014 for CREATE2. Coordinated boundary and gas-order tests are required for these two limited interactions, matching score 2.
  • eip.md · Front matter and Abstract, lines 1-20; Specification, lines 42-51 EIP-3860 formally requires and extends EIP-170, deriving its maximum initcode size from EIP-170's maximum deployed-code size.
  • supporting/eip-170.md · Parameters and Specification, lines 14-25 EIP-170 defines MAX_CODE_SIZE and the existing over-limit deployed-code failure that supplies the proposal's base constant and related creation boundary.
  • eip.md · Rationale — Gas cost per word, lines 73-77 The new cost is explicitly combined with EIP-1014's CREATE2 hashcost, changing CREATE2's post-activation per-word total from 6 to 8.
  • supporting/eip-1014.md · Specification, lines 11-15 EIP-1014 defines CREATE2 and the existing per-word hashcost and deduction point with which the new mechanism must coordinate.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: EIP-3670 is mentioned only as a possible future beneficiary of an extendable cost system, not as a dependency or modified mechanism, so it is not counted.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-170, EIP-1014
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2A test can observe whether an oversized opcode call first pays the new per-word cost and the pre-existing memory, base, and CREATE2 hash costs, or instead returns zero after an earlier size check. Agreement is needed, but the gap is localized to creation-opcode failure ordering, matching score 2.
  • eip.md · Specification — Rules, lines 53-58 The rules separately state that oversized CREATE or CREATE2 returns zero and that the new charge is deducted before address calculation and execution, without ordering those two rules against all pre-existing charges.
  • eip.md · Rationale — How to report initcode limit violation?, lines 93-95 The rationale fixes zero as the failure result and distinguishes it from exceptional-abort conditions, but does not specify the gas already consumed on that path.
  • supporting/eip-1014.md · Specification, lines 13-15 The prior CREATE2 rule orders hashcost with memory expansion and base creation gas, exposing an unresolved interaction with the new oversize check and initcode charge.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The numbered order and normal gas-check conventions may suggest an intended reading, but the historical text does not make that reading normative.
Show 18 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is added, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification — Rules, lines 53-58 The proposal applies new rules to the already named CREATE and CREATE2 instructions and assigns no new opcode value.
Added precompiles0No precompile is added, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 40-58 The proposal defines fixed constants and rules for transactions, CREATE, and CREATE2 and introduces no callable precompile address or function.
Modified precompiles0No existing precompile is modified, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 40-58 All specified changes concern initcode processing by transactions and creation opcodes; no precompile logic or gas schedule is mentioned.
Added system contracts0No system contract is added, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 14-20; Specification, lines 40-58 The proposal consists of an initcode cap and gas rules and deploys no protocol-owned contract or contract code.
Modified system contracts0No system contract code, state, or behavior is modified, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification — Rules, lines 53-58 The rules directly modify generic contract-creation transactions and EVM opcodes, without identifying or altering any pre-existing system contract.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob gas accounting is introduced or modified, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 14-20; Specification, lines 40-58 The only gas introduced is an initcode word charge for contract-creation transactions and CREATE-family opcodes; no blob resource or blob-gas rule appears in the proposal.
State gas accounting changes0The new charge is EVM execution gas, not state gas, so score 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification — Rules, lines 53-58 The proposal changes execution and intrinsic gas for initcode length; it defines no separate cost for bytes written to state, state-gas budget, or spill mechanism.
New EVM gas refund0No EVM gas-refund mechanism is introduced, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification — Parameters and Rules, lines 42-58 The rules only add an initcode charge and size limit and contain no refund or mechanism for returning gas.
New transaction types0No new transaction type is introduced, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification — Rules, lines 53-58 The proposal changes rules for an existing create transaction and does not define a new typed transaction envelope or transaction category.
New block / header fields0No block or block-header field is introduced, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 40-58 The proposal's constants and rules use existing transaction and opcode data and define no new block-body or header field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No RLP, SSZ, transaction, block, or interface encoding changes, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification — Rules, lines 53-58 Existing transaction data is reinterpreted for size and intrinsic gas, but its encoding and all block and interface encodings remain unchanged.
Block syncing changes0Consensus transaction validity changes do not by themselves constitute the new block-RLP validation mechanism required by this anchor, so score 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification — Rules, lines 53-58 A creation transaction can become invalid because of initcode length or intrinsic gas, but the proposal introduces no block or transaction RLP validation format.
New fork activation mechanism0Ordinary activation of new rules is not the activation-block mutation required by this anchor, so score 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 97-101 The proposal requires a network upgrade because consensus rules change, but it specifies no activation-block state mutation, migration, or modification of an internal variable.
Engine API changes0No Engine API field or endpoint is introduced, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 40-58 The complete rule set concerns EVM contract creation and transaction intrinsic gas and specifies no engine endpoint, field, or communication mechanism.
Transition-tool interface changes0No transition-tool interface change is required, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 40-58 All parameters and rules are derived from transaction data, opcode inputs, and fixed constants; the proposal specifies no transition-tool field or external input.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Existing creation tests may need changed expectations, which is scored in the preceding criterion, but unrelated pre-existing tests gain no new invariant; score 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Test Cases, lines 111-118 The proposal calls for targeted tests of gas sufficiency and initcode-size boundaries, not an additional output or property for unrelated tests to assert.
New test-framework primitives0These cases can be expressed using ordinary transaction, opcode, gas, and byte-array test capabilities; no new framework abstraction is indicated, so score 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Test Cases, lines 111-118 The proposed cases use ordinary creation transactions, CREATE and CREATE2, selectable gas limits, and byte-length boundaries.
Cryptography0Reusing an existing hashing-cost shape does not introduce or modify a cryptographic mechanism, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Rationale — Gas cost per word, lines 73-77 The new cost is made compatible with CREATE2's existing hashcost by adding 2 to that established per-word charge; no hash function or cryptographic result is changed.
  • supporting/eip-1014.md · Specification, lines 11-21 EIP-1014 supplies the existing CREATE2 address-hashing mechanism and its hashcost, which EIP-3860 leaves intact.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@d38a4add0c EIPS/eip-3860.md committed 2022-02-03 · information cutoff 2022-02-04
Current master · File history · blob 7acc1955a8 · sha256 4dd3935265d7
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/shanghai/eip-3860.yaml · sha256 020762521910
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-170.md, supporting/eip-1014.md
Compare EIP-3860 with other assessmentsAll Shanghai / Shapella 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.