Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7685: General purpose execution layer requests

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

RetrospectivePrague / PectraAssessment cutoff 2024-04-25Included by cutoffLayers: execution, consensus
LLM Completescore 34
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2024-04-18 · e2a66831fc

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, this draft defined a generic container for execution-layer requests intended for consensus-layer processing. It appended an ordered list of typed opaque requests to the RLP block body and added a 32-byte header commitment computed as an indexed Merkle-Patricia trie root. Concrete request provenance and validity, intra-type ordering, and consensus-layer type extensions were left to request-specific proposals.

34HighHigh
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 12 criteria affected
Plausible range
22–37 (Medium–High)
Assessment cutoff
2024-04-25 · EIP revision e2a66831fc (2024-04-18)
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. New block / header fields3
  2. Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3
  3. Block syncing changes3
  4. Transition-tool interface changes3

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 draft deliberately defers normative request provenance and validity, intra-type ordering, and consensus-layer type extensions to request-specific proposals. It also leaves Engine API transport, malformed or unknown request handling, size and rate limits, activation semantics, tests, and security analysis unstated, preventing a complete generic cross-client baseline.

Plausible total

22–37
recorded score 34 · plausible tiers Medium, High

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (6)
  • What exact request sources are consensus-valid, and how is completeness of the body request list validated against execution?
  • What is the width and valid range of request_type, and how are empty, malformed, duplicate-type, or unknown-type request items handled?
  • What intra-type ordering is required for each request type, and which proposal owns that rule?
  • Which Engine API fields or endpoints transport requests and their commitment, and which consensus-layer types carry them?
  • What request count, byte-size, or rate limits apply, and how do those limits interact with block validity and performance?
  • What activation, empty-list, and pre-fork compatibility rules govern the new body and header fields?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • The request_type representation is not given an explicit width or registry, even though examples use single-byte values and cross-type ordering is normative.
  • The text says requests_root commits to the body list but does not separately spell out malformed-list, unknown-type, mismatch, or empty-list validation.
  • The EL-to-CL exposure is an objective of the proposal, while its Engine API and beacon-chain representation are not specified.
  • The proposal is Draft, its test cases are TODO, and its security considerations state that discussion is needed at the cutoff.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7685 Prague / Pectra: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
New block / header fields3At least one new block or header field is explicitly introduced, triggering the rubric's binary score-3 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification / Block structure and Block Header, lines 50-80 The block body gains a request-list field and the header gains the 32-byte requests_root field.
Confidence: High
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3The proposal explicitly changes encoding at the block body and header levels, triggering the rubric's binary score-3 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification / Block structure, lines 50-63 The RLP-encoded block body is extended by appending a list of requests.
  • eip.md · Specification / Block Header, lines 65-80 The encoded block header is extended with a new 32-byte requests_root.
Confidence: High
Block syncing changesUnder-specified3Sync/import validation gains multiple RLP changes, including the complex variable body-list and header-commitment relationship, satisfying score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification / Block structure, lines 50-63 Block-body RLP is extended with a nested variable list of opaque requests.
  • eip.md · Specification / Block Header, lines 65-80 The header gains a fixed-width requests_root whose validity depends on the body list's indexed trie root.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Exact malformed-input rules are not supplied, but the mandatory body and header validation surfaces are explicit.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified3A transition tool must represent multiple new block values and support the new request-production and commitment mechanism, which is the score-3 combination of multiple fields and a new mechanism.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 13-18 The framework adds one request-information field to the execution block header and one to the body.
  • eip.md · Specification / Request and Block Header, lines 34-80 Producing the fields requires typed request collection, ordering, and indexed-trie-root computation.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The EIP does not define a transition-tool schema or say whether the body list and derived root are separate tool outputs.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified3Mandatory body and header changes plus ordering and commitment validation require a major, diverse subset of existing post-activation block-construction, serialization, import, and invalid-block tests to be reworked, meeting the score-3 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification / Block structure and Block Header, lines 50-80 Every block under the proposal gains a variable request list in its RLP body and a new header commitment derived from that list.
  • eip.md · Specification / Request, lines 41-48 The full request list must additionally satisfy ascending cross-type ordering.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The sealed package contains no test inventory; the breadth is inferred from both additions being mandatory for every block governed by the proposal.
Security risksUnder-specified3The mechanism connects contract execution, block commitments, EL validation, and consensus-layer actions, all security-critical components, while altering their trust and validation boundaries. This supports score 3 and extensive security review and fuzzing.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Motivation, lines 13-26 Contract-triggered execution-layer requests are exposed for consensus-layer processing of validator-related administrative behavior.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Request source and validity, lines 96-115 Request origin and validation are non-normative, with possible validation split between system contracts on the EL and further checks on the CL.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 144-146 The historical security section is unresolved and states that discussion is needed.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Concrete actions and their validation are deferred, preventing a complete threat model at this revision.
Performance risksUnder-specified3The variable data path spans execution-derived collection, block construction, trie computation, validation, propagation, and CL consumption. Its integrated impact and interactions with existing block processing cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation, meeting score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification / Request and Block Header, lines 34-80 Blocks carry a variable list of opaque request bytes that must be ordered, RLP-encoded, indexed into a trie, and committed in the header.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 15-18 The request information crosses execution block production and consensus-layer processing.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Request source and validity, lines 98-110 Source and rate-limiting approaches are left to future designers rather than bounded by this EIP.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: No size, count, or rate limit is defined, and concrete request types are absent, so workload magnitude is unresolved.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3Empty and non-empty lists, opaque-data lengths, repeated and multiple types, ordering permutations, and correct or incorrect roots create multiple boundary mechanisms with an elevated combination count, meeting score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification / Request, lines 34-48 Requests combine a type with opaque bytes and lists may contain repeated and differing types subject to cross-type ordering.
  • eip.md · Specification / Block Header, lines 67-80 Variable request lists are indexed into a trie whose root must match the header.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Intra-type, lines 128-134 Ordering within equal types is explicitly delegated to each request type.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Type width, malformed and unknown-type handling, size limits, and empty-list semantics are not fully stated, so exact boundary vectors cannot be baselined.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified3Request production and validation behavior that was not previously part of a block commitment becomes consensus-visible through requests_root, yet the draft leaves multiple constructible cases unresolved. Clients and request-specific proposals must agree before vectors can be baselined, meeting score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification / Consensus Layer, lines 83-86 Each future proposal may independently choose how beacon-chain types include its execution-layer request.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Request source and validity, lines 96-115 The EIP deliberately imposes no strict rule for where requests originate or when and how they are validated.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Intra-type; Test Cases; Security Considerations, lines 128-146 Intra-type ordering is delegated, while test cases and security analysis are still TODO or unresolved.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: It is unclear which gaps are intentionally outside the generic framework and which were expected to become normative within this EIP, but either reading requires cross-client coordination before end-to-end testing.
Engine API changesUnder-specified2Communicating the new body list and header commitment across the EL/CL boundary entails multiple request-related interface fields, aligning with score 2.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 15-18 New execution header and body request fields are intended to expose request information to the consensus layer.
  • eip.md · Specification / Consensus Layer, lines 83-86 Consensus-layer proposals must extend beacon-chain types to include the new execution-layer request.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: The EIP never names Engine API endpoints, versions, field placement, or whether both values are transported independently.
New invariant on pre-existing testsUnder-specified2A broad category of existing block tests must mechanically assert request-list ordering and body-to-header commitment consistency, meeting score 2. The text does not establish the score-3 requirement that pre-fork vectors be re-derived.
  • eip.md · Specification / Block Header, lines 65-80 A block's new requests_root must equal the indexed trie root of the request list in its body.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Ordering, lines 117-126 Ascending type order is selected so all requests committed by the root can be found in the block.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Activation and treatment of existing multi-fork vectors are not specified.
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified2The framework depends on request-specific proposals for production, ordering, validation, and CL representation, so coordinated testing is required, but the generic interaction surface is limited enough for score 2. The package names no interacting EIP, so no number is inferred.
  • eip.md · Specification / Request, lines 41-48 Each request type must define its own intra-type ordering.
  • eip.md · Specification / Consensus Layer, lines 83-86 Each proposal may define its own beacon-chain type extension for its execution-layer request.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Request source and validity, lines 98-115 Future protocol designers must supply request source and cross-layer validity rules that integrate with the generic bus.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The number and identity of request-type proposals present at the cutoff are not stated, preventing assessment of stronger multi-EIP interdependency or the uncapped surcharge.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified1Existing block expectation structures need minor extension for the two new values, meeting score 1; the draft does not establish a reusable new expectation or modifier primitive needed for score 2.
  • eip.md · Specification / Block structure and Block Header, lines 50-80 Tests need to represent a request list and its new header commitment.
  • eip.md · Test Cases, lines 140-142 The historical draft supplies no test cases or proposed framework helpers.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: Concrete request generation and validation are deferred, so the eventual need for request-specific framework primitives cannot be determined from this EIP.
Show 15 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No new opcode is introduced, matching the score-0 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-86 The complete specification defines block-level request data and no opcode.
Modified opcodes0No existing opcode is modified or deprecated, matching the score-0 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-86 The specification changes block request representation and does not alter any pre-existing opcode's behavior.
Added precompiles0No new precompile is introduced, matching the score-0 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-86 No precompile is included among the request, block-body, header, or consensus-layer changes.
Modified precompiles0No pre-existing precompile is modified, matching the score-0 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-86 The normative changes contain no precompile logic or gas schedule.
Added system contracts0The proposal itself introduces no system contract, matching the score-0 anchor; possible contracts belong to future request-source designs.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Request source and validity, lines 98-110 Designated system contracts are presented only as an author recommendation, while the EIP makes no strict requirement for request origin.
Modified system contracts0No existing system-contract code, state, or behavior is modified directly or indirectly by the specified framework, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Request source and validity, lines 98-110 The only system-contract discussion is a non-normative possible source for future requests, with no pre-existing contract identified or changed.
EVM Gas rule changes0No EVM gas rule or accounting mechanism is introduced, matching the score-0 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-86 The normative changes define request data, block-body RLP, a header trie root, and consensus-layer extensibility, without defining gas accounting.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0The proposal changes neither an opcode's state-access position nor gas-charge ordering relative to state access, matching the score-0 anchor.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Request source and validity, lines 96-115 System-contract calls, storage retrieval, and event parsing are expressly recommendations rather than normative changes to opcode execution.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced or modified, matching the score-0 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-86 The specification contains request and block-structure rules but no blob gas rules or changes.
State gas accounting changes0No state gas cost, charging site, budget, reservoir, or spill mechanism is changed, matching the score-0 anchor.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Request source and validity, lines 98-115 The text discusses possible contract storage and events as non-normative request sources and specifies no state-writing charge or budget.
New EVM gas refund0No new EVM gas-refund mechanism is introduced, matching the score-0 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-86 The normative request framework contains no gas-refund rule.
New transaction types0No new transaction type is introduced, matching the score-0 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification / Request, lines 32-48 The new typed objects are requests, represented independently from transactions.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Request source and validity, lines 98-105 Transactions are only a recommended possible source of requests, not a new transaction envelope or type.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Existing transaction validity and intrinsic-gas rules are not changed, matching the score-0 anchor.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Request source and validity, lines 98-115 The EIP imposes no strict request-source rule; transaction calls are only a recommendation, and the discussed validity is request validity split across layers.
Uncertainty: Request validity is materially underspecified, but it is distinct from the rubric's transaction-validity criterion.
New fork activation mechanismUnder-specified0No special fork-activation state or internal-variable modification is specified, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-86 The specification defines ongoing block-format and request rules but no activation-block state mutation or special internal-variable modification.
Uncertainty: Activation semantics are omitted, but omission does not establish the special activation-block mutation required by the score-3 anchor.
Cryptography0Reusing the existing transaction-trie commitment pattern does not introduce a new cryptographic mechanism, matching the score-0 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification / Block Header, lines 67-80 The request commitment reuses a Merkle-Patricia trie construction described as equivalent to the existing transaction trie root.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@e2a66831fc EIPS/eip-7685.md committed 2024-04-18 · information cutoff 2024-04-25
Current master · File history · blob 428e190258 · sha256 83e2e6c4341a
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/prague/eip-7685.yaml · sha256 6557e9d12cb9
Compare EIP-7685 with other assessmentsAll Prague / Pectra 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.