Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-6780: SELFDESTRUCT only in same transaction

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

RetrospectiveCancun / DencunAssessment cutoff 2023-03-30Included by cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 16
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2023-03-28 · a3d0763930

Scope at the cutoff. At the 2023-03-30 information cutoff, draft EIP-6780 changed the existing SELFDESTRUCT opcode so that a contract not created in the current transaction retained its code and storage while transferring its balance to the target. Contracts created and self-destructed in the same transaction retained the prior deletion behavior, with the existing EIP-2929 access rules, EIP-3529 no-refund rule, and EIP-6049 deprecation left in place. The proposal identified CREATE2 address recreation across transactions as its breaking application pattern.

16MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 3 criteria affected
Plausible range
14–16 (Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2023-03-30 · EIP revision a3d0763930 (2023-03-28)
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. Edge/boundary conditions3
  3. Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus3
  4. Security risks2

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: Material localized under-specification remains around the definition and rollback lifecycle of "created in the same transaction," address reuse after destruction, and the balance result when the SELFDESTRUCT target is the executing account. The abstract's "caller" terminology also conflicts with the specification's "target."

Plausible total

14–16
recorded score 16 · plausible tiers Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)
  • Precisely which successful creation events mark an address as created in the transaction, and how is that status rolled back across reverted nested scopes?
  • If an address is destroyed, accessed, or recreated again within the same transaction, which branch applies and at what point must it behave as empty?
  • When the SELFDESTRUCT target equals the executing account, must the non-creation branch end with a zero balance, as the creation branch explicitly requires?
  • Does "caller" in the abstract mean the beneficiary/target, or does it prescribe a different recipient from the target named in the specification?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • The front matter requires EIP-2681, but the normative text does not explain how its account-nonce limit participates in EIP-6780.
  • The same-transaction branch explicitly sets the source balance to zero after transfer, while the other branch states only that the entire balance is transferred.
  • The alternative EIP-6046 is characterized briefly in EIP-6780, so it is treated as a design conflict rather than as a co-activated dependency.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-6780 Cancun / Dencun: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodesUnder-specified3The rubric assigns 3 whenever at least one existing opcode's non-gas behavior is modified; SELFDESTRUCT is explicitly modified.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-16 and 24-44 SELFDESTRUCT's non-gas behavior is changed so deletion occurs only for a contract created in the same transaction, while older contracts retain code and storage.
Confidence: High
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3Multiple boundary-prone effects require a large case matrix: creation by transaction/CREATE/CREATE2, current-versus-prior transaction, later access to code/storage/account, beneficiary state, and address recreation. At least the creation-timing and recreation mechanisms require elevated combinatorial coverage.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-44 SELFDESTRUCT has two state-result branches at the same-transaction creation boundary, covering code/storage deletion, account emptiness, balance transfer, and subsequent behavior in the current and later transactions.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 50-54 CREATE2 recreation at an address after a prior-transaction SELFDESTRUCT is singled out as the breaking boundary case.
  • supporting/eip-2929.md · Specification - SELFDESTRUCT changes, lines 88-92 Beneficiary warm/cold status remains an independent SELFDESTRUCT dimension that must be combined with the new semantic branches.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The draft gives no test plan, and some lifecycle cases within this matrix are not normatively resolved.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified3Creation history becomes a new consensus-critical discriminator for opcode results even though its difficult lifecycle cases were not previously observable through this semantic distinction. Constructible tests need agreement on those cases and on self-beneficiary balance behavior before stable baselines can be set.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 26-42 The new consensus branch depends on whether the executing contract was created in the same transaction, but the draft does not define the lifecycle of that predicate through nested creation, reversion, destruction, and address reuse.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-16 and 28-39 The abstract calls the transfer recipient the caller, while the specification calls it the target; the old-contract branch says transfer the entire balance but, unlike the new-contract branch, does not separately require setting the source balance to zero.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The package records a Draft only three days after creation and contains no packaged resolution of these cases; later amendments or implementation knowledge were deliberately not consulted.
Security risks2The new semantics alter the code/storage deletion invariant and interact with CREATE2-based application upgrade assumptions. The affected components are limited enough for targeted security review and fuzzing rather than an extensive chain-wide review.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility and Security Considerations, lines 50-60 Cross-transaction CREATE2 destruction-and-redeployment is explicitly broken, and applications using SELFDESTRUCT for that upgrade pattern are declared unsafe.
  • supporting/eip-2535.md · Security Considerations - Do Not Self Destruct, lines 420-425 The recommended alternative standard itself warns that SELFDESTRUCT misuse can delete a diamond or facet, illustrating the security sensitivity of migration.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The EIP identifies one unsafe application pattern but does not exhaustively analyze other contracts that rely on account deletion.
Performance risks2Performance validation cannot be fully isolated from account storage size and transaction lifecycle, but the impact is limited to SELFDESTRUCT and its two branches rather than broad execution benchmarks.
  • eip.md · Motivation, lines 18-22 Existing SELFDESTRUCT can remove all code and storage and therefore causes large, storage-size-dependent state changes that the proposal seeks to avoid.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-42 The proposal preserves deletion for current-transaction creations but removes it for older contracts, making performance dependent on creation timing and the affected account state.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The package provides motivation but no benchmarks or implementation detail, so the magnitude of the residual tracking and deletion costs is not quantified.
Cross-EIP interactions2Coordinated testing is needed across the new semantic branch, EIP-2929 access charging, and EIP-3529 refund behavior, while EIPs 2681, 6049, and the conflicting 6046 proposal add limited dependency/deprecation/design context. These interactions are multiple but localized to SELFDESTRUCT and creation behavior, matching score 2; five identified EIPs do not form the first complete group of three interactions beyond the initial three, so they do not trigger the uncapped increment.
  • eip.md · Front matter and Specification, lines 1-12 and 24-44 The proposal declares requirements on EIPs 2681, 2929, and 3529; it explicitly preserves the latter two SELFDESTRUCT gas/refund rules and EIP-6049 deprecation.
  • eip.md · Rationale, lines 46-48 EIP-6046 is discussed as a rejected alternative whose storage-preservation and contract-removal design conflicts with the selected semantics.
  • supporting/eip-2929.md · Specification - SELFDESTRUCT changes, lines 88-92 EIP-2929 supplies the cold-beneficiary gas/access rule that remains active.
  • supporting/eip-3529.md · Specification, lines 25-41 EIP-3529 supplies the removed SELFDESTRUCT refund that remains active.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: EIP-2681 is declared as required without an explicit explanation of its role in the normative text; EIP-6046 is an alternative rather than a co-activated dependency.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-2681, EIP-2929, EIP-3529, EIP-6046, EIP-6049
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1Existing tests that exercise SELFDESTRUCT state deletion require reworking, but they are a narrow opcode-specific subset rather than a broad class of the test corpus.
  • eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 24-54 Pre-existing SELFDESTRUCT vectors must distinguish contracts created in the current transaction from older contracts and change expected deletion for the latter; CREATE2 recreation across transactions is explicitly breaking.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The package does not enumerate the pre-existing test corpus, so the relative size of the affected subset is inferred from the proposal's single-opcode scope.
Show 21 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is added.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 14-16 The proposal changes the functionality of the existing SELFDESTRUCT opcode.
Added precompiles0No precompile is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-44 The normative change concerns SELFDESTRUCT and adds no precompile address or logic.
Modified precompiles0No existing precompile is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-44 No precompile behavior or gas schedule appears in the proposal.
Added system contracts0No system contract is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-44 The proposal changes an opcode and deploys no contract.
Modified system contracts0No direct or package-identified indirect system-contract modification exists.
  • eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 24-54 The proposal describes general account and application behavior but identifies no pre-existing system contract whose code, state, or operation is affected.
EVM Gas rule changes0The proposal changes SELFDESTRUCT's state result, but introduces no gas accounting change and explicitly preserves the applicable existing rules.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-41 Both semantic branches expressly retain the EIP-3529 no-refund rule and the EIP-2929 SELFDESTRUCT gas/access rules.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No state access is moved within opcode execution and no gas charge is moved relative to an access, so the ordering-specific anchor is not triggered.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-42 The specification changes whether code, storage, and the account are deleted, while saying that EIP-2929's SELFDESTRUCT rules remain unchanged.
  • supporting/eip-2929.md · Specification - SELFDESTRUCT changes, lines 88-92 The preserved EIP-2929 rule charges and records a cold beneficiary address; EIP-6780 does not relocate that access or charge.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced or modified.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-16 and 24-44 The proposal is confined to SELFDESTRUCT execution behavior and contains no blob-gas rule or blob-related field.
State gas accounting changes0Changing state writes is not itself a change to the rubric's separate state gas accounting mechanism; no such accounting mechanism appears here.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-42 The specification changes which state objects SELFDESTRUCT deletes but defines no state-gas price, state-byte rate, budget, reservoir, or spill rule.
New EVM gas refund0The proposal introduces no new refund mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-41 Both branches state that no refund is given under EIP-3529.
  • supporting/eip-3529.md · Specification, lines 25-41 EIP-3529 removed the SELFDESTRUCT refund, which EIP-6780 explicitly leaves unchanged.
New transaction types0No transaction type is introduced.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-16 and 24-44 The proposal applies new semantics during ordinary transaction execution and defines no transaction envelope or type.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0No transaction validation mechanism is added or modified.
  • eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 24-54 The hard-fork change governs SELFDESTRUCT's execution result and does not alter transaction validity or intrinsic gas calculation.
New block / header fields0No block or header field is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-44 The specification contains no new block body or header field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No RLP, SSZ, or other interface-level encoding is changed.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-44 The execution semantic change defines no transaction, block, or interface encoding change.
Block syncing changes0No RLP validation mechanism requiring syncing is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-44 The specification changes opcode execution and contains no block RLP or block-validation rule.
New fork activation mechanism0Ordinary fork-gated execution semantics do not constitute the rubric's special activation-block modification mechanism.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 50-54 The EIP says a hard fork is required because consensus execution rules change, but specifies no activation-block state mutation or internal-variable modification.
Engine API changes0No Engine API change is introduced.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-16 and 24-44 The entire normative change is within SELFDESTRUCT execution; no Engine API endpoint, field, or communication mechanism is specified.
Transition-tool interface changes0No transition-tool interface modification is specified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-44 The proposal defines an execution-rule branch using transaction-local creation timing and adds no input or output interface field.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Affected SELFDESTRUCT tests need changed expectations; unrelated pre-existing tests do not gain a mechanically added assertion.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-44 The new conditions alter expected SELFDESTRUCT results but do not define an additional output or invariant that tests unrelated to this EIP must assert.
New test-framework primitives0The historical text does not require a new expectation type, modifier, or reusable test-framework abstraction; existing transaction and state checks suffice.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-42 The two outcomes can be constructed with ordinary contract-creation and transaction sequences and observed through ordinary post-state behavior.
Uncertainty: No packaged test-framework description is available, so sufficiency is judged from the protocol behavior exposed by the EIP.
Cryptography0No cryptography mechanism is introduced or modified.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-16 and 24-44 The proposal changes account deletion and balance-transfer semantics and introduces no cryptographic algorithm or cryptographic operation.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@a3d0763930 EIPS/eip-6780.md committed 2023-03-28 · information cutoff 2023-03-30
Current master · File history · blob 2f8299df31 · sha256 111c746d16b4
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/cancun/eip-6780.yaml · sha256 bf3c82056837
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-2535.md, supporting/eip-2681.md, supporting/eip-2929.md, supporting/eip-3529.md, supporting/eip-6046.md, supporting/eip-6049.md
Compare EIP-6780 with other assessmentsAll Cancun / Dencun assessments
Criterion legend and glossary

Every stacked bar, comparison matrix, and criterion table on this site uses the same criterion colours, abbreviations, and order. Colour marks the criterion group; the abbreviation and name identify the criterion. Scores are 0–3 per criterion (4 is exceptional; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped).

EVM surface

Opcodes, precompiles, and system contracts that are added or modified.

  • 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.