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 5
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. EIP-7516 (revision of 2023-09-14) adds one EVM instruction, BLOBBASEFEE, at byte 0x49. It takes no stack inputs, pushes one value and costs a constant 2 gas. The pushed value is get_blob_gasprice(header) from EIP-4844, computed from the current block header's excess_blob_gas. The EIP describes itself as identical to EIP-3198's BASEFEE except for the value it returns. It adds no header fields, transaction rules, encodings or accounting mechanisms. However, in the supplied EIP-4844 text, byte 0x49 is already assigned to BLOBHASH (HASH_OPCODE_BYTE = Bytes1(0x49)), so the two opcode assignments clash.

5LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 2 criteria affected
Plausible range
5–10 (Low)
Assessment cutoff
2023-09-14 · EIP revision ed54cdb1a7 (2023-09-13)
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. Cross-EIP interactions2
  2. Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2
  3. Added opcodes1

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 target assigns opcode byte 0x49 to BLOBBASEFEE. The supplied same-fork prerequisite EIP-4844 assigns the same byte to BLOBHASH (HASH_OPCODE_BYTE = 0x49). Neither document resolves the conflict. Separately, the EIP does not say what happens if get_blob_gasprice exceeds 2^256 (likely unreachable).

Plausible total

5–10
recorded score 5 · plausible tiers Low

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (2)
  • Which instruction executes at byte 0x49 in the target fork: BLOBBASEFEE or BLOBHASH? Is one of them meant to move to a different byte?
  • If the computed blob gas price exceeded 2^256 − 1, what would BLOBBASEFEE push (truncate, saturate or fail)?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • Opcode 0x49 collides with EIP-4844's HASH_OPCODE_BYTE (BLOBHASH) in the supplied revision.
  • No overflow handling is specified for a blob gas price above uint256. In practice this is probably unreachable, because blob transactions must cover the price with a uint256 max_fee_per_blob_gas.
  • The EIP does not say how the opcode behaves when no blob header data is available. Within the fork, the header fields always exist.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7516 Cancun / Dencun: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Cross-EIP interactions2Testing BLOBBASEFEE needs coordinated EIP-4844 block sequences in which blob transactions drive excess_blob_gas, so the opcode's output can be checked against the price used for blob data fees in the same block. The first post-fork block and the opcode-byte coexistence with BLOBHASH also need cases. EIP-3198 needs only local consistency checks. This is coordinated cross-EIP work without multi-EIP restructuring. Level 2.
  • eip.md · Specification — "returns the result of the `get_blob_gasprice(header)`" The opcode output depends on EIP-4844's excess_blob_gas tracking and pricing function.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Header extension — calc_excess_blob_gas; Gas accounting — get_blob_gasprice excess_blob_gas changes across blocks according to blob usage. In the first post-fork block, the parent values are treated as 0.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Parameters — HASH_OPCODE_BYTE 0x49 The opcode-space collision with BLOBHASH.
  • eip.md · Abstract — "identical to EIP-3198 (`BASEFEE` opcode)" The design mirrors BASEFEE.
Confidence: Medium
Interacting EIPs: EIP-4844, EIP-3198
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2In the assessed baseline, two normative rules define different behavior for the same byte, 0x49. One is BLOBBASEFEE (0 inputs, pushes the blob gas price, 2 gas). The other is BLOBHASH (1 input, pushes a versioned hash, 3 gas). Expected results for any bytecode that executes 0x49 cannot be fixed until the specifications or clients agree. This is a localized contradiction, so level 2. A minor further gap is that the EIP does not say what happens if the price exceeds uint256, which is likely unreachable.
  • eip.md · Specification — "Add a `BLOBBASEFEE` opcode at `(0x49)`" The target assigns 0x49 to BLOBBASEFEE.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Parameters — "`HASH_OPCODE_BYTE` | `Bytes1(0x49)`" The same-fork prerequisite assigns 0x49 to BLOBHASH.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The collision is probably an editorial error, but this revision does not resolve it.
Added opcodes1Exactly one simple instruction is introduced. Level 1.
  • eip.md · Specification — "Add a `BLOBBASEFEE` opcode at `(0x49)`, with gas cost `2`" One new instruction: no immediate data, 0 inputs, 1 output, constant gas.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The byte 0x49 clashes with BLOBHASH in the supplied EIP-4844 text. The instruction itself is still simple.
Show 25 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodesUnder-specified0Best-supported reading: the target intends to add a new instruction and does not say that BLOBHASH changes. Level 0. Read literally, though, assigning 0x49 to BLOBBASEFEE would remove BLOBHASH at that byte, which would be an availability change (level 3).
  • eip.md · Specification — "Add a `BLOBBASEFEE` opcode at `(0x49)`" The target presents itself as adding an instruction, not modifying one.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Opcode to get versioned hashes / Parameters — "`HASH_OPCODE_BYTE` | `Bytes1(0x49)`" The same-fork prerequisite assigns BLOBHASH to 0x49.
Uncertainty: The opcode-byte collision with BLOBHASH (0x49) is unresolved. If BLOBBASEFEE takes 0x49, BLOBHASH's availability changes and ~OP would be 3.
Added precompiles0Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile is added.
Modified precompiles0Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile is changed.
Added system contracts0Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contract is introduced.
Modified system contracts0Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contract is involved.
EVM Gas rule changes0A new instruction with a constant cost does not add or change any execution-gas charging, metering, limit or settlement rule. Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification — "with gas cost `2`" The new instruction has a fixed base cost of 2. This is an ordinary instruction cost, not a new or changed gas accounting rule.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Gas cost The cost is the same as BASEFEE's G_base, because the value is already in the header.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0There is no state access, so no ordering rule is added or changed. Level 0.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Gas cost — "does not add extra complexity and additional read/write operations" The opcode reads a header-derived value and does not access state.
Blob gas accounting changes0Reading the blob gas price does not change blob-gas charging, pricing, limits or settlement. Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification — "returns the result of the `get_blob_gasprice(header) -> int` function" The opcode only exposes the existing blob gas price.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Gas accounting The blob gas price and its update rule are defined by EIP-4844, which is in the baseline.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting changes. Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification Only a read-only opcode is added. No state-writing accounting is involved.
New EVM gas refund0No refund mechanism is introduced. Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund mechanism is mentioned.
New transaction types0Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction type is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction validity or intrinsic gas change.
New block / header fields0No header field is added by the target. Level 0.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "publicly accessible in the block header" The opcode reads existing header data.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Header extension excess_blob_gas is added by EIP-4844, not by the target.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification No serialized schema change.
Block syncing changes0Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification No block decoding or structural validation changes.
New fork activation mechanism0Turning on an opcode at the fork is rule selection only. Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification No state migration or code installation.
Engine API changes0Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API change is mentioned.
Transition-tool interface changes0Every input the opcode needs is already required by the EIP-4844 baseline. No interface field or mechanism is added. Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification — "get_blob_gasprice(header)" The value is derived from the header's excess_blob_gas.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Header extension excess_blob_gas and its derivation from the parent are defined by the prerequisite EIP-4844, so any tool input for it belongs to EIP-4844.
Uncertainty: No transition-tool documentation was supplied. The assumption is that the prerequisite's environment already carries the excess blob gas.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified0If the opcode is added at a free byte, as the EIP intends, baseline tests need no rework, beyond the usual treatment of a previously undefined byte. Level 0 is the best-supported reading. If 0x49 actually replaced BLOBHASH, the baseline BLOBHASH test family would need rework.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "no known backward compatibility issues" The EIP claims no compatibility impact.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Parameters — "`HASH_OPCODE_BYTE` | `Bytes1(0x49)`" In the baseline, 0x49 is already BLOBHASH, so BLOBHASH tests would be affected if 0x49 were reassigned.
Uncertainty: The 0x49 collision with BLOBHASH in the supplied EIP-4844 text could require reworking the BLOBHASH tests (up to level 2).
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Baseline tests need no additional assertion. Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification No new log, header, receipt or storage output is produced.
New test-framework primitives0Tests need only an opcode, plus header/environment control over excess_blob_gas, which the EIP-4844 prerequisite already needs. No new abstraction is required. Level 0.
  • eip.md · Test Cases / Nominal case The test case is simple bytecode with a stack/gas expectation that relies on a set header blob gas price.
Security risks0No new security-sensitive boundary is introduced. Level 0.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "There are no known security implications" The value is public header data.
Performance risks0No additional performance-validation requirement. Level 0.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Gas cost — "its value is already available before running the EVM code" The value is precomputed, and the opcode costs 2 gas.
Uncertainty: If a client computed fake_exponential on every opcode call instead of caching it, the cost per call could exceed what 2 gas assumes. The EIP's rationale implies the value is precomputed.
Edge/boundary conditions0The target adds no boundary-sensitive rule. Generic opcode boundaries and blob-price value ranges belong to baseline mechanisms. Tests should still cover the price at its minimum and at large excess values. Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification — "| 0x49 | 0 | 1 | 2 |" The opcode has fixed stack effects and constant gas. Its only boundaries are generic ones (stack overflow, out of gas).
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Helpers — fake_exponential Price boundaries such as MIN_BLOB_GASPRICE at zero excess come from the prerequisite's pricing rule.
Uncertainty: The EIP does not specify what happens if get_blob_gasprice exceeds 2^256. This is likely unreachable, because a blob transaction's uint256 max_fee_per_blob_gas must cover the price.
Cryptography0No cryptographic mechanism is introduced or changed. Level 0.
  • eip.md · Specification The opcode returns a numeric fee. No cryptography is involved.
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 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-7516.yaml · sha256 625da2c6f0dd
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
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 · 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.