Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7702: Set Code for EOAs

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 2024-05-23Included by cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 33
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2024-05-09 · ad9ecb077c

Scope at the cutoff. The historical draft introduces a new EIP-2718 typed transaction, derived from EIP-2930, that carries an array of contract-code blobs and ECDSA authorization tuples. Before transaction execution, the client recovers each signer, requires that signer to have empty code, temporarily installs the authorized code, and warms the signer under EIP-2929; after execution, it clears each signer's code. The transaction origin may differ from every code signer, enabling EOA batching, sponsorship, and privilege de-escalation without adding opcodes.

33HighHigh
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 11 criteria affected
Plausible range
26–36 (High)
Assessment cutoff
2024-05-23 · EIP revision ad9ecb077c (2024-05-09)
Score bands · Checklist revision 2
  • Low <12
  • Medium 12–22
  • High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

  1. Cross-EIP interactions4
  2. New transaction types3
  3. New or modified transaction validity mechanisms3
  4. Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3

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 gives a high-level transaction shape and setup/cleanup loop but leaves transaction validity, authorization failure and atomicity, duplicate ordering, signature domain/canonicality, outer signing, receipt encoding, code limits, and exceptional cleanup unresolved. Distinct client choices would change accepted transactions, gas, observable code, or final state.

Plausible total

26–36
recorded score 33 · plausible tiers High

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (7)
  • What payload does the outer signature cover, and what receipt payload and typed signature-domain rules apply?
  • Does failed recovery, non-empty signer code, malformed signature data, or a malformed entry invalidate the transaction, skip the entry, or do something else, and are earlier mutations rolled back?
  • How are duplicate signers ordered after the first entry makes code non-empty, and are repeated or empty code blobs valid?
  • What code-size, code-format, entry-count, and intrinsic-gas overflow rules constrain the authorization list?
  • How is temporary code restored after top-level failure, nested reverts, SELFDESTRUCT, CREATE/CREATE2 collisions, or other signer-account changes?
  • Is omission of value intentional zero-value semantics, and which typed-transaction validity rules are inherited beyond intrinsic cost?
  • Do the code read and write affect warming or incur gas before step 4 explicitly adds the signer to accessed_addresses?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • MAGIC, TX_TYPE, and the fork block remain TBD; this prevents executable vectors but is separate from the more consequential missing behavioral rules.
  • The intrinsic-cost sentence calls code bytes calldata bytes and does not say how remaining encoded authorization-signature bytes are charged.
  • The empty-code verification has no failure mode, so a two-entry duplicate-signer vector has no determined outcome.
  • End-of-transaction code clearing does not define restoration semantics after execution changes or destroys a signer account.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7702 Prague / Pectra: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Cross-EIP interactionsExceptional4EIPs 2718, 2929, and 2930 are strong protocol dependencies needing coordinated transaction, gas, and warm-access tests. EIPs 3074, 4337, and 5003 add workflow, security, integration, and migration axes. Six interactions give base 3 plus one point for the first three beyond the initial three.

Exceptional score: This row is uncapped. Six interacting EIPs yield score 4 under the explicit +1-for-every-three-additional-EIPs formula.

  • eip.md · Front matter and Specification, lines 11 and 44-59 EIPs 2718, 2929, and 2930 supply the envelope, cost basis, access list, and signer warming.
  • eip.md · Abstract, Motivation, and Rationale, lines 16, 26-31, and 67-87 The proposal replaces EIP-3074 workflows, claims EIP-4337 wallet and EntryPoint compatibility, and describes EIP-5003 as a direct extension.
  • supporting/eip-2930.md · Specification, lines 49-107 EIP-2930 supplies typed RLP, signature, intrinsic access-list charges, and warm access-set handling inherited by the proposal.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Relationships with 3074, 4337, and 5003 lack full conformance boundaries or test plans.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-2718, EIP-2929, EIP-2930, EIP-3074, EIP-4337, EIP-5003
New transaction types3The rubric assigns score 3 for introduction of a new transaction type.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 37-50 TX_TYPE is declared and a new EIP-2718 transaction with that type and a new payload is explicitly introduced.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The numerical TX_TYPE value remains TBD at the cutoff.
New or modified transaction validity mechanismsUnder-specified3Per-entry signatures, account-state preconditions, variable-length structural validity, and costs require extensive combinations and new typed-transaction support, matching score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 46-59 The transaction adds nested RLP authorization entries, intrinsic-gas rules, signer recovery, an empty-code precondition, and ordered setup actions.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Authorization failure outcome, outer signature preimage, and receipt definition are not specified.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)Under-specified3The rubric assigns score 3 for any transaction-level encoding change; this new RLP schema directly meets the anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 44-50 A transaction-level RLP payload is introduced with a nested array of contract_code and signature components.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Receipt encoding and detailed nested-array RLP validity constraints are omitted.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified3A transition tool needs multiple new nested fields and a new authorization-array processing mechanism, matching score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 44-61 A new typed transaction carries nested contract_code, y_parity, r, and s fields and triggers per-entry recovery, validation, mutation, warming, and cleanup.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The concrete transition-tool schema and whether it accepts decoded entries or raw typed bytes are not specified.
Security risksUnder-specified3Arbitrary temporary EOA code and separated origin/authority roles alter critical account, balance, execution, mempool, relayer, and application assumptions, requiring extensive review and fuzzing, matching score 3.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility and Security Considerations, lines 89-95 A balance invariant is broken, mempools and inclusion lists are affected, shared EIP-3074 risks apply, and users are warned about code they sign.
  • supporting/eip-3074.md · Security Considerations, lines 326-350 Shared risks include replay protection, authorization of call properties, near-complete EOA compromise, tx.origin assumptions, and relayer griefing.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The sparse section imports EIP-3074 concerns without specifying which mitigations or signature-domain protections this design adopts.
Performance risksUnder-specified3Temporary code interacts with account/code caching, state snapshots, access warming, arbitrary execution, and cleanup, so end-to-end impact cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation and has complex existing interactions, matching score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 48-61 Each of multiple variable-size entries requires hashing, recovery, account-code lookup, installation, warming, eventual removal, and ordinary EVM execution.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: No performance analysis, explicit code-size limit, authorization-count limit beyond gas, or caching guidance is included.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3Empty/malformed arrays, invalid signatures, pre-existing code, repeated signers, gas thresholds, success/revert, cleanup, and address aliasing combine into an elevated stateful test matrix, matching score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 48-63 A variable-length array is processed in order with recovery, an empty-code check, code mutation, warming, cleanup, and signer/origin separation.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility and Security Considerations, lines 89-95 Temporary authority can reduce a non-origin account's balance and users must be careful about arbitrary code they sign.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Several boundary outcomes first require consensus interpretation because the draft does not define them.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified3Temporary EOA code becomes consensus-observable while constructible failure and lifecycle outcomes remain unanswered. Clients must agree before vectors can be baselined, matching score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 37-63 Constants are TBD and the terse loop omits failure, atomicity, duplicate-entry, outer-signature, receipt, and exceptional-cleanup rules.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 89-91 Temporary authority makes a previously relied-upon balance invariant observably false for mempool and inclusion-list behavior.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: No packaged test cases or more detailed specification resolves these questions at the cutoff.
EVM Gas rule changesUnder-specified2This is a new intrinsic-gas mechanism scoped to the new transaction type. It composes with existing intrinsic accounting without changing pre-existing transaction types, matching score 2.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-52 The new transaction inherits EIP-2930 intrinsic gas and adds per-byte gas for each code blob plus a 5000-gas base charge for every authorization entry.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Malformed-entry, arithmetic-overflow, and non-code authorization-byte charging rules are not fully specified.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified2Reusable transaction builders/signers and temporary-code expectations are needed within this EIP's suite, matching score 2; permanent use by other EIPs is not established.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 46-61 Tests must construct and sign a nested authorization transaction and observe account code during execution and after cleanup.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: No test design shows the exact boundary between existing helper extensions and wholly new primitives.
CryptographyUnder-specified1This is another use of well-known, protocol-used keccak and secp256k1 recovery, not a novel cryptographic primitive, matching score 1.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 54-59 Each authorization uses ecrecover over a keccak hash of MAGIC and contract_code with y_parity, r, and s.
  • supporting/eip-2930.md · Specification, lines 36-38 and 51-53 The inherited transaction family already uses secp256k1 signatures represented by y parity, r, and s.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Signature canonicality and invalid-recovery rules for authorizations are omitted.
Show 16 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is introduced.
  • eip.md · Rationale, lines 82-85 The proposal explicitly states that it does not add opcodes.
Modified opcodes0Opcodes observe changed state, but their own behavior is not modified, so this is not an opcode modification under the criterion.
  • eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 54-61 and 67-74 Account code changes at transaction boundaries and ordinary calls execute that code; no existing opcode's result semantics are redefined.
Added precompiles0No precompile is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 54-59 Setup invokes existing ecrecover functionality but defines no new precompile address or behavior.
Modified precompiles0No pre-existing precompile is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 54-59 Signer recovery uses ecrecover without changing its logic or gas schedule.
Added system contracts0No system contract is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 44-63 User-supplied code is installed temporarily on signer accounts; no protocol system contract is deployed or designated.
Modified system contracts0No system contract is directly or indirectly modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 54-61 Mutation applies to recovered signer accounts whose code must be empty, not to pre-existing system-contract code or state.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0The change is at transaction boundaries, not inside an opcode's execution, so no opcode-level state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 54-61 Code checking, installation, and warming occur during transaction setup, while clearing occurs at transaction end.
  • eip.md · Rationale, lines 82-85 The proposal explicitly states that it does not add opcodes.
Blob gas accounting changes0The proposal contains no blob gas accounting change.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 44-63 The transaction fields and costs concern execution gas, access lists, authorizations, and account code; no blob field or blob-gas rule appears.
State gas accounting changes0Temporary account-code writes do not by themselves introduce the state-gas accounting mechanism defined by this criterion.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 52-61 Only intrinsic execution-gas charges are specified; temporary code mutation has no separate state-gas budget, rate, reservoir, or spill rule.
New EVM gas refund0No new gas-refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-61 The proposal specifies positive intrinsic charges and setup/cleanup but no refund-counter update or refund condition.
New block / header fields0No new block or header field is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 44-63 All newly defined fields belong to the transaction payload.
Block syncing changes0Sync clients must recognize the type, but no block-level RLP validation mechanism changes; EIP-2718 already makes typed payloads opaque at that layer.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 44-50 The proposal defines a new EIP-2718 RLP TransactionPayload.
  • supporting/eip-2718.md · Specification, lines 28-34 The existing typed envelope already permits TransactionType plus an opaque payload inside the established transaction trie.
New fork activation mechanism0Ordinary fork gating is not an activation-block transition under the anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 37-44 A fork block gates the new type, but no one-time state or internal-variable mutation at activation is specified.
Uncertainty: The fork block remains TBD, but that does not alter the score.
Engine API changes0No Engine API field or communication mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 33-63 The specification covers transaction parameters, payload, cost, and execution processing, with no Engine API endpoint or field.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified0A new feature test family is required, but the historical text does not establish a rule forcing pre-existing tests to be reworked.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 44-63 All new processing is gated on a newly introduced typed transaction, leaving specified behavior of pre-existing transaction types unchanged.
Uncertainty: Incomplete failure and cleanup semantics could later expose broader regressions, but they are not established at the cutoff.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0The invariant break needs targeted regression tests, not a new mechanically applicable assertion on tests that are not about this EIP.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 89-91 A balance invariant is broken with consequences for mempools and inclusion lists, but no new output is prescribed for every unrelated existing test.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@ad9ecb077c EIPS/eip-7702.md committed 2024-05-09 · information cutoff 2024-05-23
Current master · File history · blob 8534301caf · sha256 ed08fdd82ff9
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-7702.yaml · sha256 b2d810a2047d
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-20.md, supporting/eip-2718.md, supporting/eip-2929.md, supporting/eip-2930.md, supporting/eip-3074.md, supporting/eip-4337.md, supporting/eip-5003.md
Compare EIP-7702 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.