Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7516: BLOBBASEFEE opcode

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 2023-09-14Added after cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 9
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2023-09-13 · ed54cdb1a7

Scope at the cutoff. At the 2023-09-14 information cutoff, this Draft EIP specified one new constant-cost EVM opcode, BLOBBASEFEE at 0x49, which takes no stack input and pushes the current block's EIP-4844 blob gas price. It deliberately follows EIP-3198's BASEFEE design and says the value is already available before EVM execution, so it adds no new blob-pricing formula, transaction type, header field, or state access. In the sealed package, however, EIP-4844 also assigns 0x49 to BLOBHASH, and the EIP does not settle that opcode conflict or the representation of a blob gas price wider than an EVM stack word.

9LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 6 criteria affected
Plausible range
8–15 (Low–Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2023-09-14 · EIP revision ed54cdb1a7 (2023-09-13)
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. Cross-EIP interactions2
  2. Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2
  3. Added opcodes1
  4. EVM Gas rule changes1

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 is present. The sealed EIP-7516 and required EIP-4844 revisions assign incompatible behaviors to opcode 0x49, and EIP-7516 specifies only a small byte32 example without defining how an integer result wider than one EVM stack word is handled.

Plausible total

8–15
recorded score 9 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (3)
  • Which opcode number and behavior should prevail when EIP-7516 specifies BLOBBASEFEE at 0x49 but the required EIP-4844 specifies BLOBHASH there?
  • Is BLOBBASEFEE intended to add a relocated opcode, replace or relocate BLOBHASH, or otherwise amend EIP-4844?
  • What result must be pushed if get_blob_gasprice(header) is wider than 256 bits, and are all such inputs excluded by another validity rule?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (2)
  • Opcode 0x49 has incompatible definitions in EIP-7516 and the packaged EIP-4844 revision.
  • The EIP does not specify conversion or failure behavior if the referenced integer blob gas price exceeds the width of one EVM stack item.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7516 Cancun / Dencun: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified2The BASEFEE analogy is limited, but the EIP-4844 dependency and opcode collision require coordinated specification and testing. The interaction is confined to two identified EIPs and a small surface, so score 2 fits better than the extensive multi-EIP coordination required by score 3.
  • eip.md · Front matter and Abstract, lines 1-16 EIP-7516 formally requires EIPs 3198 and 4844, copies the BASEFEE design, and returns EIP-4844's blob gas price.
  • supporting/eip-3198.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 26-37 EIP-3198 supplies the simple constant-cost BASEFEE opcode pattern that EIP-7516 follows.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Parameters, Gas accounting, and Opcode to get versioned hashes, lines 55-56 and 164-193 EIP-4844 supplies the returned price function but also assigns 0x49 to BLOBHASH, creating a direct allocation and behavior conflict.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The package does not say how the 0x49 collision is intended to be resolved.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-3198, EIP-4844
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2Clients cannot baseline byte 0x49 until the localized opcode-allocation conflict is resolved, and they also need a common interpretation for an over-wide integer result. These are localized decisions requiring client agreement, which matches score 2; they do not redefine a broad class of previously unobservable behavior.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-33 EIP-7516 assigns BLOBBASEFEE to 0x49 and defines it as returning the integer result of get_blob_gasprice(header).
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Parameters and Opcode to get versioned hashes, lines 55-56 and 188-193 The required EIP-4844 revision already assigns 0x49 to BLOBHASH with different stack behavior and a gas cost of 3.
  • eip.md · Test Cases / Nominal case, lines 46-61 The sole test covers only a small result of 7 as a left-padded byte32 and does not define behavior for a result outside the stack-word range.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The package contains neither an amendment resolving the allocation nor a bound or conversion rule that removes the result-width question.
Added opcodesUnder-specified1On its stated design this is exactly one simple constant-cost opcode, matching score 1.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-33 BLOBBASEFEE is specified as one opcode with no inputs, one output, a constant cost of 2, and no data portion or complex stack mechanics.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The claimed new opcode number collides with EIP-4844's BLOBHASH allocation; the primary score follows EIP-7516's stated intent to add an opcode, while a resolution could instead require relocation or modification of BLOBHASH.
EVM Gas rule changes1Adding a constant gas-schedule entry for one opcode updates the existing per-opcode EVM gas mechanism; it does not create a new or dynamic gas accounting mechanism. This matches score 1.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-33 The new opcode is assigned a fixed cost of 2 gas while retaining the ordinary zero-input, one-output opcode execution shape.
Confidence: High
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified1Existing invalid-opcode coverage for byte 0x49, and any EIP-4844 BLOBHASH vectors at this shared cutoff, cannot retain their prior expected behavior. This is a narrow subset of EVM tests rather than a broad validation-pattern rewrite, matching score 1.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-33 Byte 0x49 is made a valid constant-cost opcode with defined stack output.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Parameters and Opcode to get versioned hashes, lines 55-56 and 188-193 The packaged EIP-4844 revision assigns the same byte to BLOBHASH with a different cost and stack behavior.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The package does not include a pre-existing test corpus, and EIP-4844's own Test Cases section is TBD, so the exact number of affected vectors is not established.
Security risks1An incorrect opcode result could cause contracts or users relying on it to account for blob costs incorrectly, but the mechanism is self-contained, publicly checkable, and does not alter an existing security invariant. This matches score 1 rather than a broader interaction score.
  • eip.md · Motivation, lines 18-23 Contracts may use the opcode for trustless rollup cost accounting and blob gas futures, making the returned value economically consequential.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 63-65 The EIP characterizes the value as public, non-sensitive, and without known security implications.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The EIP gives use cases rather than a concrete dependent-contract design, so the magnitude of downstream economic harm is not quantified.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified1The single boundary-prone mechanism is mapping the calculated integer into one 256-bit EVM stack word, particularly at the word-width limit. This is one localized boundary axis and matches score 1.
  • eip.md · Specification and Test Cases, lines 25-33 and 46-61 The opcode pushes the integer returned by get_blob_gasprice, while the only example describes a small value as a left-padded byte32.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Helpers and Gas accounting, lines 83-95 and 164-182 The referenced price is produced by an integer exponential approximation over header excess_blob_gas, with no result-width bound stated there.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The package does not state what BLOBBASEFEE does if the referenced integer is wider than one EVM stack word, nor does it establish whether every such value is reachable under valid-header rules.
Show 21 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodesUnder-specified0The EIP does not normatively say that BLOBHASH or any other pre-existing opcode is modified or deprecated. The allocation conflict is scored as under-specification and cross-EIP interaction rather than treating an unstated conflict resolution as a modification.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-16 and 25-33 EIP-7516 describes BLOBBASEFEE as an added opcode modeled on BASEFEE, not as a behavioral change to an existing opcode.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Parameters and Opcode to get versioned hashes, lines 55-56 and 188-193 The package nevertheless shows a conflicting BLOBHASH definition at the same byte in the required EIP-4844 revision.
Uncertainty: If 0x49 were intended to replace EIP-4844's BLOBHASH rather than being a mistaken allocation, this anchor would be 3 under its binary definition.
Added precompiles0No precompile is introduced by EIP-7516.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-33 The proposal adds an opcode at a byte value, not a contract-addressed precompile.
Modified precompiles0No pre-existing precompile is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-33 The only specified mechanism is BLOBBASEFEE; no existing precompile logic or gas schedule is referenced for modification.
Added system contracts0No system contract is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-33 The EIP adds an opcode directly and specifies no contract address, code, state, or system action.
Modified system contracts0No existing system contract's code, state, or behavior is directly or indirectly modified.
  • eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 25-33 and 42-44 The proposal is limited to a new opcode and reports no backward compatibility effect; it specifies no system-contract change.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0The opcode reads no account or storage state and introduces no gas charge relative to a state access, so no state-access ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Gas cost, lines 35-40 The EIP says the blob base-fee value is already available before EVM execution and that the opcode adds no read or write operations.
Blob gas accounting changes0Exposing an already-defined price is not an update to blob gas accounting and introduces no new blob gas accounting mechanism. The anchor therefore remains at 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-33 BLOBBASEFEE returns the result of EIP-4844's existing get_blob_gasprice(header) function rather than defining or changing that function.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Gas accounting, lines 164-186 EIP-4844 independently defines blob gas, its price calculation, and fee deduction; EIP-7516 only exposes the calculated price to EVM code.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas cost, charging site, budget, reservoir, or execution-gas spill behavior is introduced or modified.
  • eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 25-40 The complete change is a read-only opcode returning a header-derived value, with no state write or state-gas rule.
New EVM gas refund0No gas-refund mechanism is introduced, so score 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-33 The specification assigns the opcode a fixed gas cost and defines only its stack result; it defines no refund behavior.
New transaction types0EIP-4844's blob transaction is a dependency, not a new transaction type introduced by EIP-7516.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-16 and 25-33 EIP-7516 adds an opcode that reads a value defined by EIP-4844 and does not define a transaction envelope or type identifier.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Reading the existing blob gas price from EVM code does not add or modify a transaction validity mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-33 The normative change defines opcode execution and contains no transaction validity or intrinsic-gas rule.
New block / header fields0No block or header field is introduced by this EIP.
  • eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 25-40 The opcode exposes a value already available from the current header and does not specify a new field.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Header extension, lines 119-162 The blob_gas_used and excess_blob_gas header fields are introduced by the required EIP-4844, independently of EIP-7516.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No encoding change at the transaction, block, or interface level is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-33 The opcode definition changes EVM bytecode semantics but specifies no transaction, block, RLP, SSZ, or interface encoding.
Block syncing changes0No RLP validation mechanism requiring client syncing is introduced by this EIP.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-33 The proposal adds only an EVM opcode and does not change block RLP or add block-validation fields.
New fork activation mechanism0Opcode availability at the containing fork does not itself modify state or an internal variable at the activation block, so score 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-33 The proposal defines opcode behavior but no fork-block state transition, internal-variable mutation, or activation-block special case.
Engine API changes0No Engine API field, endpoint, or communication mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-33 The full normative change concerns opcode number, stack arity, cost, and returned EIP-4844 value; no Engine API directive is mentioned.
Transition-tool interface changes0EIP-7516 requires the EVM to expose context already supplied by its EIP-4844 dependency; it specifies no additional transition-tool field or interface mechanism.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Gas cost, lines 35-40 The EIP states that transaction processing already makes the blob base-fee value available before EVM code executes.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Header extension and Gas accounting, lines 119-182 The required EIP-4844 supplies the header inputs and price function on which the opcode depends.
Uncertainty: The package does not specify an actual transition-tool interface, so this score relies on the EIP's statement that the value is already available.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Tests not concerned with this opcode gain no additional invariant to assert, so score 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification and Test Cases, lines 25-33 and 46-61 The EIP defines behavior and a nominal test for the new opcode only; it does not require unrelated tests to assert a new block-wide output.
New test-framework primitives0Existing opcode execution, stack, and gas assertions can express the proposed test; no new framework abstraction is required.
  • eip.md · Test Cases / Nominal case, lines 46-61 The supplied test is ordinary bytecode execution with gas and stack expectations for BLOBBASEFEE followed by STOP.
Performance risks0A constant-cost stack push of an already-computed contextual value does not introduce a mechanism requiring separate performance validation.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Gas cost, lines 35-40 The EIP states that the value is already available before EVM execution and that the opcode adds no complexity or additional reads or writes.
Cryptography0Although EIP-4844 contains cryptography elsewhere, EIP-7516 neither invokes nor changes it; no cryptographic mechanism is attributable to this EIP.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 25-33 The opcode returns an integer price obtained from a referenced accounting function and specifies no cryptographic operation.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@ed54cdb1a7 EIPS/eip-7516.md committed 2023-09-13 · information cutoff 2023-09-14
Current master · File history · blob 89db18af93 · sha256 436d072998e3
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-7516.yaml · sha256 b2785dc0b9ff
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-3198.md, supporting/eip-4844.md
Compare EIP-7516 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.