Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7691: Blob throughput increase

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 2024-12-18Added after cutoffLayers: execution, consensus
LLM Completescore 14
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2024-12-18 · 1da6c75495

Scope at the cutoff. At this revision, EIP-7691 raises the blob target from 3 to 6 blobs per block and the maximum from 6 to 9 when Prague activates. On the execution layer it only swaps parameters: MAX_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK becomes 1179648, TARGET_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK becomes 786432 and BLOB_BASE_FEE_UPDATE_FRACTION_ELECTRA is 5007716. These values replace the EIP-4844 values at the fork timestamp. It adds no new transaction type, header field, opcode, precompile, Engine API change or activation migration. The consensus-layer constants MAX_BLOBS_PER_BLOCK_ELECTRA (9) and TARGET_BLOBS_PER_BLOCK_ELECTRA (6) are consumed by consensus clients.

14MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 5 criteria affected
Plausible range
13–19 (Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2024-12-18 · EIP revision 1da6c75495 (2024-12-18)
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. Block syncing changes2
  2. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2
  3. Edge/boundary conditions2
  4. Cross-EIP interactions2

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 EIP is a parameter swap, but it does not explicitly specify the fork-transition behavior: which target is used when computing the first Prague block's excess_blob_gas from a Cancun parent. Its activation wording ('PECTRA_FORK_EPOCH timestamp') mixes epoch and timestamp, and the Prague values reuse the names of the Cancun constants.

Plausible total

13–19
recorded score 14 · plausible tiers Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (3)
  • Is the first Prague block's excess_blob_gas computed with the new target 786432 or the Cancun target 393216?
  • Is the EL activation tied to the Prague block timestamp, as implied, rather than an epoch?
  • Is there any EL-side mechanism, such as an Engine API or configuration, that keeps the CL blob-count constants consistent with the EL blob-gas limits?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • The Parameters section says 'starting at PECTRA_FORK_EPOCH timestamp', which mixes epoch and timestamp semantics for EL activation.
  • Backwards Compatibility reuses the names MAX_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK and TARGET_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK for both the Cancun and Prague values.
  • The Motivation mentions a possible flag for the maximum blobs in locally built blocks, but it is non-normative and not specified.
  • The transition-block excess_blob_gas computation is not stated explicitly.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7691 Prague / Pectra: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Block syncing changesUnder-specified2The parent-dependent excess_blob_gas header validation (a complex rule) changes its expected values through the new target, and must be tested through block import, including across the fork boundary. The blob_gas_used limit is arguably an ordinary execution rule. This gives exactly one complex rule changed, which is level 2.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Execution layer validation / assert block.header.excess_blob_gas == calc_excess_blob_gas(block.parent.header) The header excess_blob_gas validation depends on the parent and on the target.
  • eip.md · Specification / Parameters The target and max blob gas change at the fork.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: A parameter-only change to an existing check could be seen as an ordinary execution-rule change (level 0–1). Counting the max-blob-gas check as well would give level 3.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified2Baseline blob tests run against Prague need new expected results in several families: maximum blob count per block (now 9 valid and 10 invalid), excess_blob_gas computation (new target), blob base fee and price-dependent transaction validity (new fraction), and parent excess-gas setup. Most of the rework is at parameter-dependent cases, but the excess-gas calculation changes for ordinary cases too. This is level 2, not a common rewrite across unrelated families.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Once Prague is active, execution clients use the new max, target and update-fraction values.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Execution layer validation Baseline tests cover the block blob-gas limit, the excess_blob_gas header check and the max_fee_per_blob_gas versus blob base fee check, all of which depend on the changed constants.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Could be argued as level 3 because every blob-carrying block's excess_blob_gas and blob fee changes. However, all affected families are blob-related and the change is purely a parameter change.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified2Several boundary-sensitive mechanisms change: the block blob-gas limit (9 versus 10 blobs), the excess-gas target and its zero clamp (6 blobs), and the base-fee thresholds through the new fraction. The fork-transition block, whose parent was produced under Cancun values, is an added boundary. No elevated matrix is clearly established, so this is level 2.
  • eip.md · Specification / Parameters A new maximum, target and update fraction apply from the fork timestamp.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Header extension / calc_excess_blob_gas Excess blob gas is computed against the target and clamped at 0.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Execution layer validation There is a block-level check blob_gas_used <= MAX_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK and a per-transaction max_fee_per_blob_gas >= base fee check.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The fork transition may combine parent usage, parent excess and fork timestamp into an interacting matrix. Its rule is not explicitly specified.
Cross-EIP interactions2Coordinated cases with EIP-4844 are needed: excess-gas and fee computation under the new parameters, the Cancun-to-Prague transition with carried-over excess gas, block limits at 9 and 10 blobs, and blob transactions near the fee threshold. EIP-7623 and EIP-7594 are cited only as motivation, with no EL behavioral interaction specified. This is level 2.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Gas accounting; Header extension; Execution layer validation The EIP-4844 blob fee market, excess-gas header rule and block limit are the mechanisms whose parameters change.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Cancun values apply before the fork and Prague values after it.
  • eip.md · Motivation EIP-7623 and EIP-7594 are cited as motivation only.
Confidence: Medium
Interacting EIPs: EIP-4844
Blob gas accounting changes1The existing EIP-4844 blob-gas parameters change, but no new accounting mechanism is introduced. This is level 1.
  • eip.md · Specification / Parameters MAX_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK=1179648, TARGET_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK=786432 and BLOB_BASE_FEE_UPDATE_FRACTION_ELECTRA=5007716 replace the old values at the fork.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Gas accounting / calc_excess_blob_gas, get_base_fee_per_blob_gas The existing excess-blob-gas, blob base fee and block-limit mechanisms use these constants.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Update Fraction The fee response becomes asymmetric: about +8.2% after full blocks and about -14.5% after empty ones.
Confidence: High
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms1Only existing bounds and parameters behind blob-transaction eligibility change: the base-fee threshold and the maximum blobs that fit in a block. No new validation dependency is added. This is level 1.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Execution layer validation / assert tx.max_fee_per_blob_gas >= get_base_fee_per_blob_gas(block.header) Blob transaction eligibility depends on the blob base fee, which uses the update fraction, and on the block blob-gas limit.
  • eip.md · Specification / Parameters The fraction and the max change.
Confidence: High
New test-framework primitives1The framework's fork definitions need local, fork-dependent blob parameters (max blobs, target and update fraction) so that excess gas and fees can be computed for Prague. This extends an existing kind of primitive without adding a new abstraction.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Blob parameters now differ between Cancun and Prague.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: If the framework already parametrises blob constants per fork, this could be 0. There is no supplied framework evidence either way.
Security risks1The changed blob limit and fee-response boundaries can be checked locally in EL validation. The bandwidth risk lies mostly outside the EL.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations The risk lies in network bandwidth and stability around the fork epoch.
Confidence: Medium
Performance risks1Raising the maximum from 6 to 9 blobs per block increases EL workloads for the blob mempool, sidecar KZG verification and payload blob bundles. Component benchmarking of those paths at the new bound is enough. The main propagation risk is at the network or consensus layer.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations / Network Impacts The safety of the increase is to be established mainly through big-block and blob tests on networks run by non-client teams.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Networking The EL mempool validates blob sidecars with KZG proofs.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The EIP gives no EL-specific performance analysis.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified1Transition details are omitted: which target applies to the excess computation at the fork block, and whether the fork is a timestamp or an epoch for the EL. The surrounding text, which says values are replaced from the fork timestamp, supports one intended outcome: Prague blocks use the new values. This is level 1.
  • eip.md · Specification / Parameters: 'starting at PECTRA_FORK_EPOCH timestamp replace the old max, target and update fraction values' The activation point is stated loosely; how the first Prague block's excess_blob_gas is computed from a Cancun parent is not stated explicitly.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Prague reuses the names MAX_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK and TARGET_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK for the new values, but the Parameters table gives the values.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Clients could disagree on the transition block's excess computation, which would make this level 2.
Show 18 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0None introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No opcodes are introduced.
Modified opcodes0No instruction semantics change. BLOBHASH and BLOBBASEFEE-style values only see different inputs.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Opcode to get versioned hashes BLOBHASH semantics are index-based and unchanged; only the possible range of blob counts grows.
Added precompiles0None introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompiles are introduced.
Modified precompiles0No precompile changes.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Point evaluation precompile The point evaluation precompile is unchanged by the target.
Added system contracts0None introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contracts are introduced.
Modified system contracts0No system contract changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contracts are referenced.
EVM Gas rule changes0The EIP does not change how execution gas is charged, metered, limited or settled.
  • eip.md · Specification / Parameters Only blob-gas limit, target and update-fraction parameters are specified; execution gas is not touched.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No instruction's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Specification / Parameters No instruction semantics or access ordering are specified.
State gas accounting changes0State-gas accounting does not change.
  • eip.md · Specification No state-gas rules are specified.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund mechanism is specified.
New transaction types0None introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No new transaction type is introduced.
New block / header fields0Only the values of existing fields change.
  • eip.md · Specification No header members are added; excess_blob_gas and blob_gas_used already exist from EIP-4844.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0Only values within unchanged schemas change.
  • eip.md · Specification No schema changes; only parameter values change.
New fork activation mechanism0This is selecting constants by fork, which the rubric excludes.
  • eip.md · Specification / Parameters The constants replace the old values starting at the fork timestamp; no state migration is specified.
Engine API changes0The EIP specifies no Engine API change.
  • eip.md · Specification / Parameters No Engine API fields or methods are specified.
Uncertainty: The EL/CL contract on the maximum number of blobs per payload is implicit and not addressed.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified0Selecting constants by fork does not require new transition-tool inputs or outputs under this specification.
  • eip.md · Specification / Parameters The constants are fork-selected and consumed internally by execution clients.
Uncertainty: If tools have to receive the blob parameters as configuration rather than deriving them from the fork, one field could change. The supplied text does not say this.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0No new output needs to be asserted.
  • eip.md · Specification No new header, receipt, log or state output is introduced.
Cryptography0No cryptographic mechanism changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No cryptographic rules change; KZG handling from EIP-4844 is unchanged.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@1da6c75495 EIPS/eip-7691.md committed 2024-12-18 · information cutoff 2024-12-18T19:48:12Z
Current master · File history · blob 61b85e933b · sha256 bc0b382748c6
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/prague/eip-7691.yaml · sha256 02c228a3ecb2
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
supporting/eip-4844.md, supporting/eip-7594.md, supporting/eip-7623.md
Compare EIP-7691 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 · 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.