EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7823: Set upper bounds for MODEXP

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

RetrospectiveOsaka / FusakaAssessment cutoff 2025-01-23Included by cutoffLayers: execution

LLM Completescore 13

Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: 2026-08-21 · Spec revision: 2024-11-26 · b16c055363

Scope at the cutoff. At the selected draft revision, EIP-7823 modified the EIP-198 MODEXP precompile by limiting each of its three declared input lengths to 1024 bytes. An over-limit length was specified to stop the precompile, return an error, and consume all gas, while the existing pricing and allowed-input computation were otherwise left unchanged. The draft identified the change as backwards incompatible, but its compatibility and security discussions remained incomplete.

13MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 2 criteria affected
Plausible range: 12–14 (Medium)
Assessment cutoff: 2025-01-23 · EIP revision b16c055363 (2024-11-26)

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.

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 proposal fixes the numerical threshold and states that invalid input consumes all gas, but it does not define the precise consensus-visible form of the returned error or the ordering of the bound check relative to EIP-198's parsing and gas calculation. The unfinished compatibility and security sections also leave the consequences of that failure path unanalyzed. The missing behavior is localized to over-limit MODEXP calls.

Plausible total

12–14
recorded score 13 · plausible tiers Medium

Affected criteria (2)

Edge/boundary conditions (1)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (2)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (3)

What exact precompile-call success flag and return-data result does "returns an error" require?
Is the length bound checked before the existing EIP-198 gas calculation and before any variable-length input is accessed?
Are all combinations of multiple over-limit length fields required to have exactly the same failure result and gas outcome?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)

The phrase "returns an error" does not specify the call success indicator or return data for an over-limit precompile invocation.
The draft does not state the order of the new limit check relative to the existing dynamic gas calculation and input parsing.
Backwards compatibility and security analysis are expressly incomplete at the selected revision.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7823 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Modified precompiles	2	This is a behavior modification to one existing complex, variable-input and dynamically priced precompile, which directly matches the score-2 anchor.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-35 EIP-7823 adds length validation and a new error/all-gas outcome to the existing MODEXP precompile. supporting/eip-198.md · Specification, lines 17-27 EIP-198 previously accepted 32-byte length words without an upper bound and defined parsing, computation, output, and gas from them. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The exact error representation is unspecified, but the existence of a consensus-visible behavior modification is unambiguous.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	Existing MODEXP vectors for oversized or specially crafted length fields must be reworked around the new validation outcome. This is a meaningful subset of that precompile's tests, but it is confined to the contrived class of over-limit inputs, matching the score-2 anchor.	eip.md · Abstract and Motivation, lines 14-22 The proposal says MODEXP's unbounded input surface has produced numerous consensus bugs from specially crafted, impractically long inputs. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 52-56 The draft explicitly calls the new bound backwards incompatible and says historical transactions require checking. supporting/eip-198.md · Specification examples, lines 63-71 EIP-198 includes an extreme declared-modulus-length case under its previously unbounded parsing and gas rules. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package contains no test inventory, so the exact fraction of pre-existing MODEXP vectors affected cannot be counted.
Security risks	2	The new check interacts with the existing precompile's parsing, dynamic gas, and failure behavior. A boundary or sequencing mismatch could create a consensus divergence, warranting targeted review and fuzzing of this limited component; this matches the score-2 anchor rather than an ecosystem-wide score 3.	eip.md · Motivation, lines 18-24 MODEXP is described as a source of numerous consensus bugs, especially for crafted impractical lengths and complex unbounded-input pricing. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility and Security Considerations, lines 52-62 The draft calls the change backwards incompatible, asks for historical transaction analysis, and leaves security considerations for discussion. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The security section is unfinished, so the historical text does not resolve all compatibility and failure-propagation risks.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	The proposal directly modifies EIP-198 and requires coordinated tests of its parsing and gas rules, although that interaction is limited to one EIP and one precompile. This matches the score-2 anchor. Interacting EIPs: 198.	eip.md · Front matter and Specification, lines 1-12 and 28-35 EIP-7823 formally requires EIP-198 and changes the accepted inputs and failure behavior of the precompile that EIP-198 defines. supporting/eip-198.md · Specification, lines 15-35 EIP-198 defines MODEXP's input parsing, output, adjusted exponent, and dynamic gas formula that must be considered with the new bound. Confidence: High Interacting EIPs: EIP-198
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	2	Clients can agree on the 1024-byte threshold, but tests still need a precise consensus interpretation of the localized new failure path and when it is selected. That requires agreement before baselining and matches score 2; it does not expose a broad, previously unobservable behavior of the score-3 kind.	eip.md · Specification, lines 33-35 The threshold and all-gas statement are explicit, but the text says only that execution stops and "returns an error" without defining the precise call result, return data, or check ordering. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility and Security Considerations, lines 52-62 Both sections remain marked TODO; compatibility needs investigation and security still needs discussion. supporting/eip-198.md · Specification, lines 17-27 EIP-198 defines successful parsing, gas, and output behavior but does not supply the new over-limit error semantics. Confidence: High Uncertainty: General precompile-call conventions may make parts of "returns an error" obvious to implementers, but those conventions are not specified in the sealed sources.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	The all-gas failure rule updates gas treatment for an existing precompile, but it does not introduce a new general gas-accounting mechanism. This matches the score-1 anchor for updating an existing mechanism.	eip.md · Specification, lines 33-35 The proposal makes an over-limit length an error that consumes all gas. supporting/eip-198.md · Specification, lines 21-35 The existing precompile uses a dynamic gas formula derived from the declared lengths and adjusted exponent length. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The draft does not specify the exact sequencing of the limit check relative to the existing gas calculation, but the stated all-gas outcome supports the primary score.
Performance risks	1	The new early-rejection path should be performance-validated, but it is self-contained, benchmarkable in isolation, and leaves allowed-input computation unchanged. This matches the score-1 anchor.	eip.md · Abstract and Motivation, lines 14-22 The bound makes the testing surface finite; the draft notes that MODEXP's existing unbounded-input pricing is complex but does not propose changing that pricing. eip.md · Specification, lines 33-35 The new mechanism is a direct comparison of three declared lengths with a fixed limit and an immediate failure path. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The draft supplies no performance plan or benchmark data, so validation effort is inferred only from the specified mechanism.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified	1	The proposal introduces one threshold mechanism that needs exact-limit and just-over-limit cases for each of three fields. Although it sits atop variable-length parsing, it remains one localized boundary-prone mechanism, matching the score-1 anchor.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-35 A single upper-bound rule is applied independently to the base, exponent, and modulus length fields, with a distinct over-limit failure result. supporting/eip-198.md · Specification, lines 17-27 The three lengths govern variable input parsing, right-padding, output length, dynamic gas, and adjusted-exponent calculation. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The unspecified sequencing and error semantics may add coupled boundary cases; this is reflected in the under-specification range rather than in a higher primary score.

Show 20 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No opcode is added, matching the score-0 anchor.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-16 and 28-35 The proposal modifies the existing MODEXP precompile and defines no new EVM instruction.
Modified opcodes	No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified or deprecated, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-35 The changed operation is a precompile call target rather than an opcode.
Added precompiles	No new precompile is introduced, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-35 The EIP explicitly recaps and changes the already-existing EIP-198 precompile. supporting/eip-198.md · Specification, lines 15-21 EIP-198 defines MODEXP at the existing address and its input format.
Added system contracts	No system contract is added, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-16 and 26-35 The EIP changes an existing precompile and does not introduce contract code or a new system address.
Modified system contracts	A precompile behavior change is scored in the precompile criterion and does not directly or indirectly modify a system contract. The score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-35 The target is the MODEXP precompile at its existing address, not a pre-existing system contract's code or state.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	The precompile validation change neither accesses state nor moves a gas charge relative to a state access, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-35 The only specified change is an input-length bound and failure rule for MODEXP; no state access or opcode-internal access ordering is described.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced or modified, matching the score-0 anchor.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-16 and 26-35 The proposal is confined to bounding MODEXP input lengths and contains no blob-gas rule.
State gas accounting changes	There is no state-gas cost, charging site, budget, reservoir, or spill-path change, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-35 The change concerns precompile input validation and an execution-gas failure outcome, not charging for state writes.
New EVM gas refund	No refund mechanism is introduced, matching the score-0 anchor.	eip.md · Specification, lines 33-35 Invalid over-limit input consumes all gas; the proposal specifies no gas refund.
New transaction types	No transaction type is introduced, matching the score-0 anchor.	eip.md · Specification, lines 26-35 The proposal changes execution of an existing precompile and defines no transaction envelope or type.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	Existing transaction validity rules and intrinsic gas calculations are not modified, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 33-35 Over-limit data changes the execution result of a precompile invocation; it does not make the containing transaction intrinsically invalid.
New block / header fields	No new block or header field is introduced, matching the score-0 anchor.	eip.md · Specification, lines 26-35 The normative change contains no block body or header field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	There is no transaction, block, or interface-level encoding change, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-35 The existing MODEXP calldata layout is recapped unchanged; only permitted length values and their failure outcome change.
Block syncing changes	No block-RLP validation mechanism requiring client syncing is introduced, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 26-35 The proposal modifies MODEXP execution and introduces no block or RLP validation rule.
New fork activation mechanism	Ordinary fork-gated rule activation is not the special activation-block modification described by the positive anchor. The score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 26-35 and 52-56 The EIP specifies a backwards-incompatible execution rule but no special activation-block state or internal-variable mutation.
Engine API changes	There is no Engine API change, matching the score-0 anchor.	eip.md · Specification, lines 26-35 The complete normative change is local to MODEXP input handling and names no Engine API field, endpoint, or communication mechanism.
Transition-tool interface changes	Existing transition-tool interfaces suffice, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 26-35 The specification changes precompile execution behavior without adding any transition-tool input or output field.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Tests unrelated to this EIP do not gain a universal or additional assertion; only tests of the changed MODEXP input class need different logic. The score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 33-35 The new result applies only when a MODEXP length field exceeds the limit.
New test-framework primitives	These outcomes can be expressed with ordinary precompile call, error, and gas assertions; the proposal does not require a new reusable framework abstraction. The score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 33-35 Observable expectations are limited to a length threshold, precompile error, and all-gas consumption. Uncertainty: The sealed package does not describe the test framework, but no novel expectation type is implied by the EIP text.
Cryptography	No new cryptographic mechanism or algorithm is introduced, and the computation for allowed inputs is unchanged. Merely restricting the input domain does not trigger a positive cryptography anchor.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 28-35 and 39-44 The proposal bounds operand lengths while retaining ordinary RSA and elliptic-curve-sized use cases; it does not change modular exponentiation. supporting/eip-198.md · Rationale, lines 96-100 EIP-198 already supplies the number-theoretic modular-exponentiation functionality and its exponent-pricing rationale.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@b16c055363 EIPS/eip-7823.md committed 2024-11-26 · information cutoff 2025-01-23T23:05:03Z
Current master · File history · blob cf60d90b49 · sha256 deefcee9cba6
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/osaka/eip-7823.yaml · sha256 181572e1b002
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-198.md

Compare EIP-7823 with other assessments All Osaka / Fusaka 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.

OP+
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.
PC+
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.
ORD
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.
SGAS
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.
ENC
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.
ACT
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).
T8N
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.).
INV
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.

XEIP
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.
UNSP
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.