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 14
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. EIP-6780 (draft revision of 2023-03-25) changes the SELFDESTRUCT opcode. If the executing contract was not created in the current transaction, SELFDESTRUCT only transfers the account's entire balance to the target and does not delete code or storage. If the contract was created in the same transaction, the original behaviour is kept: storage and the account are deleted, the balance is transferred and set to 0, and the account then behaves as an empty account "both in the same transaction and in all later ones". The EIP-3529 removal of the SELFDESTRUCT refund and the EIP-2929 cold-beneficiary charge stay unchanged. The stated breaking change is that a contract can no longer be re-created at the same address with CREATE2 after a SELFDESTRUCT in an earlier transaction.

14MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 3 criteria affected
Plausible range
13–15 (Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2023-03-30 · EIP revision a3d0763930 (2023-03-28)
Score bands · Checklist revision 3
  • Low <12
  • Medium 12–22
  • High ≥23

28 criteria scored 0–3 (4 in exceptional cases; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped); nominal maximum 84.

Complexity profile

Each segment is one criterion's contribution to the LLM total. Hover or focus a segment for its score and rationale.

Top complexity drivers

  1. Modified opcodes3
  2. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests3
  3. Security risks2
  4. Edge/boundary conditions2

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 revision contradicts itself on whether a same-transaction self-destruct takes effect immediately or at the end of the transaction. It omits self-beneficiary handling in the non-deleting branch and does not define 'created in the same transaction' for reverted creations or repeated creations.

Plausible total

13–15
recorded score 14 · plausible tiers Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (5)
  • After a same-transaction SELFDESTRUCT, is the account empty for the rest of that transaction, or only at the end as originally?
  • In the non-deleting branch with the beneficiary equal to the contract itself, is the balance kept or burned?
  • Does a contract count as created in this transaction if its creating frame later reverted, or if it was created, self-destructed and re-created?
  • In the non-deleting branch, is the balance explicitly set to 0 (item 2 says so; item 1 does not)?
  • How does the rule apply when SELFDESTRUCT runs through DELEGATECALL/CALLCODE in a contract created in this transaction versus a pre-existing one?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • Specification item 2 says SELFDESTRUCT 'continues to behave as originally' but also that the account behaves as empty 'in the same transaction'.
  • Specification item 1 omits zeroing the balance and the self-beneficiary case.
  • The definition of 'created in the same transaction' is not given.
  • Listing EIP-2681 in requires has no stated role in this revision.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-6780 Cancun / Dencun: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes3SELFDESTRUCT's state effects change beyond gas or ordering.
  • eip.md · Specification items 1 and 2 SELFDESTRUCT's state effects now depend on whether the contract was created in the current transaction.
Confidence: High
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified3One common rule change, that SELFDESTRUCT of pre-existing contracts no longer deletes the account, alters expected post-states for ordinary cases across distinct families. These include SELFDESTRUCT and beneficiary tests, CREATE2 recreation and collision tests, revert and nested-call tests that self-destruct pre-state contracts, and account-touch and emptiness tests. It also affects calls to the contract after the transaction.
  • eip.md · Specification item 1 — "SELFDESTRUCT does not delete any storage keys or code" Any baseline test in which a contract from the pre-state or an earlier transaction self-destructs now expects its code, storage and nonce to survive.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "re-created at the same address using CREATE2 (after a SELFDESTRUCT)" Baseline tests that recreate a contract with CREATE2 after a self-destruct in an earlier transaction now expect different results.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The breadth is estimated from the specification; no test suite was supplied.
Security risksUnder-specified2The change breaks a bounded interaction with contract creation: CREATE2 at an address whose contract self-destructed in an earlier transaction must now fail on collision. Mis-tracking same-transaction creation, for example after a reverted creation or with DELEGATECALL contexts, could wrongly delete or keep state. This needs targeted integration and fuzz cases, not coordinated changes across multiple components.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "Where CREATE2 is used to redeploy a contract in the same place ... not supported anymore" The guarantee that code and storage at an address can be cleared and redeployed is removed.
  • eip.md · Specification item 2 — "behave like exactly like an empty account" Correct tracking of same-transaction creation, including across reverts, decides whether state is deleted.
Confidence: Medium
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified2Several boundary-sensitive rules change: the same-transaction creation boundary (including creation followed by a revert), within-transaction emptiness after self-destruct, and the balance outcome when the beneficiary is the contract itself in the non-deleting branch. Dimensions such as DELEGATECALL/CALLCODE context, revert of the self-destructing frame and cold/warm beneficiary can be tested largely independently, so the matrix is not elevated.
  • eip.md · Specification item 1 — "in a transaction that is not the same as the contract ... was created" A new transaction-boundary rule: creation in the same transaction versus an earlier transaction, including an earlier transaction in the same block, changes the outcome.
  • eip.md · Specification item 2 — "Subsequently, the account will behave like exactly like an empty account, both in the same transaction" A within-transaction rule on when the account becomes empty after SELFDESTRUCT.
  • eip.md · Specification item 1 — "transfers the entire account balance to the target" Self-beneficiary handling in the non-deleting branch is a separate outcome-changing case.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: How these rules combine (for example creation reverted, then SELFDESTRUCT) depends on unresolved semantics. If counted as one mechanism this would be level 1; if combinations are deemed coupled, level 3.
Cross-EIP interactions2At least one interaction needs coordinated cross-EIP cases: self-destruct in an earlier transaction followed by CREATE2 to the same address, which now collides. The EIP-2929 and EIP-3529 interactions need only local compatibility checks in both branches. No coupled multi-EIP restructuring is required.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "re-created at the same address using CREATE2 (after a SELFDESTRUCT)" Needs coordinated cases with CREATE2 address derivation and collision behaviour.
  • eip.md · Specification — "EIP-2929's rules regarding SELFDESTRUCT remain unchanged" The cold-beneficiary charge must be checked in both branches.
  • eip.md · Specification — "No refund is given, as per EIP-3529" Zero refund must be confirmed in both branches.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: CREATE2 and empty-account semantics are not in a supplied candidate document, so they are listed as unidentified interactions.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-2929, EIP-3529, EIP-2681
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2Several localized cases have competing interpretations with observable state outcomes, so clients and the spec must agree before expected results can be fixed: within-transaction emptiness timing, the self-beneficiary balance, and the definition of 'same transaction' creation.
  • eip.md · Specification item 2 — "continues to behave as originally" vs "Subsequently, the account will behave like exactly like an empty account, both in the same transaction" Contradictory rules: originally, deletion takes effect at the end of the transaction, but the text says the account is empty immediately within the same transaction.
  • eip.md · Specification item 1 — "transfers the entire account balance to the target" Does not say what happens when the beneficiary is the contract itself (balance kept or burned), and does not say the balance is set to 0, unlike item 2.
  • eip.md · Specification item 1 — "not the same as the contract ... was created" Does not define 'created' when the creating frame reverts, when an address is created, self-destructed and re-created in one transaction, or when CREATE2 targets an address that already holds a balance.
Confidence: Medium
Show 22 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No new instruction.
  • eip.md · Abstract — "changes the functionality of the SELFDESTRUCT opcode" An existing opcode is modified; none is added.
Added precompiles0None introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile is introduced.
Modified precompiles0None modified.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile changes.
Added system contracts0None introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No protocol-designated contract is introduced.
Modified system contracts0The Shanghai baseline has no system contracts affected by this change.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contract is referenced.
EVM Gas rule changes0No execution-gas accounting rule or parameter changes. The SELFDESTRUCT refund was already removed by EIP-3529, which is in the baseline.
  • eip.md · Specification — "No refund is given, as per EIP-3529"; "EIP-2929's rules regarding SELFDESTRUCT remain unchanged" Both branches keep the existing gas and refund rules; no new charge or parameter is introduced.
  • supporting/eip-2929.md · SELFDESTRUCT changes Defines the existing cold-beneficiary surcharge, which the target leaves unchanged.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0Checking whether the contract was created in this transaction uses transaction-scoped bookkeeping, not a new state access with an ordering rule. No opcode's access or charge order changes.
  • eip.md · Specification — "EIP-2929's rules regarding SELFDESTRUCT remain unchanged" Beneficiary access and charging stay as before; no new ordering rule is stated.
Uncertainty: The spec does not say when the 'created in this transaction' check happens relative to the beneficiary access, but there is no gas consequence.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob-gas changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Only SELFDESTRUCT semantics change; blobs are not mentioned.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting mechanism or parameter is added or changed.
  • eip.md · Specification No state-byte or state-gas charging is introduced.
New EVM gas refund0No refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification — "Note that no refund is given since EIP-3529" Explicitly no refund in either branch.
New transaction types0None introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction type is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0No consensus validity change.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction-validity or intrinsic-gas rule changes.
New block / header fields0None added.
  • eip.md · Specification No header field is added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No schema or codec changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No serialized object changes. The Verkle note on cleared-storage marking concerns future tries and is non-normative for this fork.
Block syncing changes0No block decoding or structural validation change.
  • eip.md · Specification Only opcode semantics change.
New fork activation mechanism0No activation-specific state transition is needed.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "This EIP requires a hard fork" Only a rule switch at the fork; no state migration is described.
Engine API changes0No Engine API change.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API change is described.
Transition-tool interface changes0No transition-tool field or mechanism change is required.
  • eip.md · Specification Creation tracking is internal to transaction execution; no new input or output is described.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Changed post-state values are rework (counted under PAT), not a new assertion.
  • eip.md · Specification No new log, receipt, header field or protocol-mandated output is introduced.
New test-framework primitives0Existing primitives (pre-state accounts, creation-transaction and factory bytecode, blockchain tests with several transactions) are enough; no new abstraction is architecturally required.
  • eip.md · Specification items 1 and 2 The distinction depends on whether a contract was created in the same transaction. This can be set up with pre-state contracts, CREATE/CREATE2 within a transaction, and multi-transaction blocks.
Uncertainty: Helpers for deploy-then-selfdestruct factories would be convenient but are not new primitives.
Performance risks0No new or larger workload needs performance validation. Tracking contracts created in the transaction is bounded bookkeeping.
  • eip.md · Motivation — "requires large changes to the state of an account, in particular removing all code and storage" The change removes the unbounded deletion work for pre-existing contracts rather than adding workload.
Cryptography0No cryptographic change.
  • eip.md · Specification No cryptographic rule is involved.
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 3 · ethspecs/pm@fe2f793b03
Evaluator
Opus 5.5 (claude-opus-5-5) at high effort, one tool-less call per EIP · isolation bubblewrap_claude_p_no_tools_v1
Source record
Frozen research record research/tasks/10-opus-v3-reassessment/retrospective/outputs/assessments/cancun/eip-6780.yaml · sha256 d55b03a42ea9
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
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 · not in checklist revision 1
    Changes *where inside an opcode's execution* state is accessed, or where gas is charged relative to that access. Because a state access is recorded in the block-level access list only if execution had enough gas to reach it, this ordering is consensus-critical: moving it changes the BAL at every gas boundary of every affected opcode.
    Score anchors
    0
    No change to where state is accessed, or to where gas is charged relative to a state access, within any opcode.
    1
    A single opcode's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
    2
    Multiple opcodes' ordering changes, or a new state-accessing operation is introduced whose position in the order must be settled.
    3
    The ordering rule changes for a whole class of state-accessing opcodes at once, or what counts as a recordable state access is redefined — requiring existing BAL vectors to be re-derived across opcodes and forks.
    • Distinct from "Modified opcodes", which asks whether an opcode's **result** changed. This row asks about the **path to the result**, which is observable even when the result is identical. An EIP can be 0 on that row and 3 on this one.
    • Score changes **to** the ordering. Do not score the fact that state accesses are observable — they always are.
    • Each boundary must be re-tested against every other dimension that can change the answer (cold/warm, static/non-static, delegated/direct, revert/success), so the case count grows multiplicatively rather than additively. Note this explicitly under Special Considerations.
  • Blob gas accounting changes
    New Blob gas accounting rules which potentially affect pre-existing tests
    Score anchors
    0
    No blob gas accounting changes.
    1
    Existing blob gas accounting mechanism is updated.
    2
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
    3
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
  • State gas accounting changes · not in checklist revision 1
    New state gas accounting rules. State gas is the cost of *writing* state, as opposed to accessing or executing it: `StateGasCosts`, `COST_PER_STATE_BYTE`, the block-level state gas budget, and the spill path into execution gas.
    Score anchors
    0
    No state gas accounting changes.
    1
    An existing state gas cost or `STATE_BYTES_PER_*` rate is adjusted.
    2
    A new state-gas-charging site is introduced, or the block-level state gas budget or reservoir allocation is modified.
    3
    A new state gas charging mechanism is introduced, or the spill interaction between state gas and execution gas is modified, affecting existing gas tests.
    • Harder to test than blob gas: the spill path means state gas cannot be metered independently of execution gas, and some costs (e.g. `NEW_ACCOUNT`) are state-dependent.
  • New EVM gas refund
    New gas-refund mechanism
    Score anchors
    0
    No new gas-refund mechanisms are introduced.
    1
    A new simple gas-refund mechanism is introduced that does not affect either existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    2
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced or a simple mechanism that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    3
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.

Blocks, transactions, and encoding

Transaction types and validity, block and header fields, encodings, syncing, and activation-time changes.

  • New transaction types
    Introduces a new transaction type
    Score anchors
    0
    No new transaction types are introduced.
    3
    A new transaction type is introduced.
  • New or modified transaction validity mechanisms
    Creates new or modifies pre-existing transaction types' validation mechanisms
    Score anchors
    0
    No changes are introduced to the validity rules of existing transaction types or to their intrinsic gas cost calculation.
    1
    Minor adjustments are introduced to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation, but they do not significantly affect existing tests.
    2
    Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation affect existing tests, but require only limited updates to test cases and no redesign of the testing infrastructure.
    3
    Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation require extensive rework or redesign of the tests or testing infrastructure.
  • New block / header fields
    Introduces new block or block header fields
    Score anchors
    0
    No new block or header fields are introduced.
    3
    A new block or header field is introduced.
  • Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)
    Introduces encoding changes at the transaction/block/interfaces level
    Score anchors
    0
    No encoding changes are introduced at the transaction, block, or interfaces levels.
    3
    An encoding change is introduced at transaction, block or interfaces level (e.g. RLP -> SSZ).
    • "Interfaces level" includes the Engine API. Score an Engine API encoding change (e.g. JSON -> SSZ) here.
  • Block syncing changes
    Modifies block RLP validation mechanisms that require test client syncing.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
    1
    A single simple RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
    2
    Multiple simple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced or a single complex one.
    3
    Multiple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is deemed complex.
  • New fork activation mechanism
    Modifies state, internal variables, or similar, at the fork activation block
    Score anchors
    0
    No state modifications, internal variables or similar are modified at the fork activation block.
    3
    Either a state modification or internal variables are modified at the fork activation block.
    • Initialization of new internal variable is not considered a modification.

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

  • Engine API changes
    Introduces new fields to the Engine API directives
    Score anchors
    0
    No new fields or communication mechanisms are introduced to the Engine API.
    1
    A single new field is introduced in one of the Engine API endpoints.
    2
    Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points, or a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
    3
    Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points and a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
  • Engine API encoding changes · Checklist revision 1 only
    Engine API encoding changes (the revision-1 template defines no anchor text for this row).
  • Transition-tool interface changes
    Modifies or adds new fields to the transition tool interface.
    Score anchors
    0
    No modifications to the transition tool interface are required.
    1
    A single new field needs to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    2
    Multiple new fields or a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    3
    Multiple new fields and a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    • Special consideration must be paid to this section if the EIP introduces a mechanism that requires the state transition tool to be aware whether the block it is processing is the fork-activation block.

Testing impact

Rework, new invariants, and new primitives required in the test framework.

  • Patterns affecting pre-existing tests
    Implements a new validation mechanism or rule that translates in reworking pre-existing tests
    Score anchors
    0
    No pre-existing tests are affected by this change.
    1
    Minor subset of existing tests are affected by this change.
    2
    Considerable subset of existing tests are affected by this change but involves only a contrived category of tests.
    3
    Major subset of existing tests are affected, including diverse category of tests (benchmarks, static, multiple forks, etc.).
  • New invariant on pre-existing tests · not in checklist revision 1
    Tests that are **not about this EIP** must nonetheless assert something this EIP produces. Their logic does not change; they gain a new thing to check.
    Score anchors
    0
    Pre-existing tests assert nothing new.
    1
    A narrow, contrived category of pre-existing tests gains a new assertion.
    2
    A broad category gains a new assertion, applied mechanically.
    3
    Every test in the fork gains the assertion regardless of what it tests, and pre-fork vectors must be re-derived to satisfy it.
    • Paired with the row above, and easy to confuse with it. "Patterns affecting pre-existing tests" asks whether existing tests must be **reworked**; this row asks whether they must **additionally assert something new**. Score both — an EIP can be low on one and high on the other.
  • New test-framework primitives · not in checklist revision 1
    Requires new abstractions in the test framework itself — expectation types, modifiers, helpers — beyond writing test functions with what already exists.
    Score anchors
    0
    Existing test primitives suffice.
    1
    Existing primitives need minor extension.
    2
    New expectation or modifier primitives are required, reusable within this EIP's own test suite.
    3
    New framework-level primitives are required that become a permanent part of the framework and are used by other EIPs' tests.

Risk and validation

Security, performance, boundary conditions, and cryptography that need validation.

  • Security risks
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms that could compromise the security of the chain, users, validators, or other stakeholders, if not implemented properly.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new mechanisms are introduced that could pose a security risk.
    1
    The introduced mechanisms are self-contained, can be validated in isolation, and do not alter existing invariants that could pose a security risk for any stakeholders.
    2
    The introduced mechanisms interact with a limited number of existing components, slightly altering their security assumptions and requiring a targeted security review or fuzzing.
    3
    The introduced mechanisms interact with multiple existing components, including critical ones, substantially altering their security assumptions and requiring an extensive security review and fuzzing.
  • Performance risks
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms and requires performance validation.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new mechanisms are introduced that require performance validation.
    1
    The introduced mechanisms can be benchmarked in isolation and do not affect existing performance behavior.
    2
    The introduced mechanisms cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation, but they only have a limited impact on the existing performance benchmarks.
    3
    The introduced mechanisms cannot be benchmarked in isolation and have a substantial impact on existing performance benchmarks or have complex interactions with existing mechanisms.
  • Edge/boundary conditions
    Feature contains edge/boundary conditions.
    Score anchors
    0
    No discernible edge cases or boundary conditions are introduced.
    1
    A single edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanism is introduced.
    2
    Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced, but none of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
    3
    Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
  • Cryptography
    Introduces new cryptography mechanisms or modifies existing functionality that involves cryptography
    Score anchors
    0
    No cryptography mechanisms are introduced.
    1
    A new cryptography mechanism is introduced but it is a well known mechanism that is known to have vast resources to aid on its testing.
    2
    Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced that are well-known or a single but novel mechanism is introduced that is either untested or has limited resources.
    3
    Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is a novel mechanism.

Coordination

Cross-EIP interactions and behavior that clients must agree on before tests exist.

  • Cross-EIP interactions
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms that affect other EIPs in either the same or past forks.
    Score anchors
    0
    Fully self-contained EIP that does not depend on, modify, or conflict with any other EIP.
    1
    The EIP interacts with one or more other EIPs in a non-critical and limited way but can be tested independently for the most part.
    2
    The EIP depends on or modifies one or more other EIPs such that coordinated testing and consideration is required, but interactions are limited in scope and not complex.
    3
    The EIP has strong interdependencies with multiple EIPs, requiring extensive coordinated cross-EIP testing as well as potential re-design of existing test vectors.
    • +1 for every 3 additional interacting EIPs beyond the first 3, each of which requires its own coordinated test cases. List the EIPs in the rationale.
    • This row is intentionally uncapped, unlike every other anchor: each interacting EIP is another axis of the test matrix, so a ceiling would make a 12-EIP product indistinguishable from a 3-EIP one.
  • Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus · not in checklist revision 1
    The EIP text does not determine the answer for cases a test can construct. Clients must agree on a previously unspecified detail before tests can be baselined. The cost here is coordination and re-baselining, not test writing.
    Score anchors
    0
    The EIP text determines the answer for every case a test could construct.
    1
    A few details are unspecified but have an obvious intended reading.
    2
    Details require client agreement before tests can be written, but they are localized.
    3
    A previously unspecified *and previously unobservable* behavior becomes consensus-critical; expect tests to be re-baselined on each round of EIP amendment.
    • Score this from the EIP's state at assessment time: whether it has client implementations, whether it has been through a devnet, and how many open questions remain on its discussion thread.