Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7825: Transaction Gas Limit Cap

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 2025-02-21Included by cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 11
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2024-12-02 · 8096a3a13a

Scope at the cutoff. This revision of EIP-7825 sets a fixed protocol-level cap of 30,000,000 gas on any single transaction's gasLimit. The cap does not depend on the block gas limit, which can still be higher. A transaction whose gasLimit exceeds 30M is rejected from the txpool. A block containing such a transaction is invalid and is rejected during validation before processing. The EIP adds no new transaction type, header field, opcode, precompile or system contract.

11LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 5 criteria affected
Plausible range
9–14 (Low–Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2025-02-21 · EIP revision 8096a3a13a (2024-12-02)
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. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2
  2. EVM Gas rule changes1
  3. New or modified transaction validity mechanisms1
  4. Block syncing changes1

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 normative rule (reject when gasLimit > 30,000,000) is clear. Missing details include: precedence relative to other validity checks, whether protocol system calls are exempt, the exact error identifier, and wording in the abstract ('gas usage') that differs from the gasLimit-based specification.

Plausible total

9–14
recorded score 11 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)
  • Is the cap on the gasLimit field (Specification) or on gas actually used (Abstract)?
  • Does the cap apply to protocol system calls that execute with their own gas budgets?
  • What is the precedence when a transaction exceeds both the 30M cap and the available block gas, or fails intrinsic-gas checks?
  • Is the error code normative, or only illustrative?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • The Abstract says 'maximum gas usage per transaction' while the Specification checks the gasLimit field.
  • The error code `MAX_GAS_LIMIT_EXCEEDED` is given only as an example ('e.g.').
  • Applicability to system calls and the ordering against other validity checks are not specified.
  • The section titled 'Changes to EVM Behavior' contains only txpool and block-validation rules; it changes no EVM execution.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7825 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2Baseline state and blockchain tests that set transaction gas limits above 30M must be changed to lower limits, or their expected results must change to invalid. This affects localized high-gas cases in several families: large-gas or near-block-gas-limit cases, memory/copy-expansion stress cases, deep-call and large-deployment cases. There is no common rewrite across ordinary cases, so level 2 fits. No suite was supplied, so the extent is estimated from the specification.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "not backward-compatible with transactions that specify gas limits exceeding 30 million" Any transaction with gasLimit above 30M becomes invalid in the target fork.
  • eip.md · Changes to EVM Behavior — Block Validation A block containing a transaction above the cap is invalid, so baseline block tests using such transactions would fail.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: If many baseline fixtures use very large default gas limits, the rework could be broader (level 3). If few do, it could be narrower (level 1).
EVM Gas rule changesUnder-specified1The available execution gas per transaction is now bounded by a constant instead of only by the block gas limit. This changes an existing limit parameter without adding a new accounting mechanism (opcode costs, refunds and settlement are unchanged), so level 1 fits.
  • eip.md · Protocol Adjustment — "The `GAS_LIMIT` parameter for transactions will be capped in client implementations at 30 million" Adds a fixed upper bound on the per-transaction gas limit. Gas charging and metering rules are otherwise unchanged.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The cap could instead be treated purely as a transaction-validity rule (TXV), which would make this 0.
New or modified transaction validity mechanismsUnder-specified1Only a local bound on an existing field is added. There is no new validation dependency or sequence, and existing transaction-validity test construction can be reused. Level 1 fits.
  • eip.md · Gas Cap — "Transactions specifying gas limits higher than 30 million gas will be rejected" Adds an upper bound on the existing gasLimit field for all transactions.
  • eip.md · Changes to EVM Behavior — Block Validation The bound is a consensus rule enforced at block validation.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The ordering against other gas-limit checks (for example gasLimit > block gas limit, or intrinsic gas) is not specified, which may need dedicated cases (level 2).
Block syncing changesUnder-specified1One simple, local block-validation rule is added: a check on a single transaction field, done before processing and tested through block import. Level 1 fits.
  • eip.md · Changes to EVM Behavior — Block Validation "before processing, any block having a transaction with `gasLimit` > 30 million is deemed invalid" Adds a block validation rule that is checked before execution and depends only on each transaction's gasLimit field.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: This could be seen as an ordinary transaction-validity rule rather than structural block validation (0).
New test-framework primitives1The framework needs a local extension: a new transaction-exception value and a fork-dependent cap constant. No new abstraction is required.
  • eip.md · Gas Cap — "rejected with an appropriate error code (e.g., `MAX_GAS_LIMIT_EXCEEDED`)" Introduces a new transaction rejection reason.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: This could be 0 if a new exception value is not considered an extension of a primitive.
Security risks1The new check can be validated locally. The security risk is a consensus split if clients enforce the boundary inconsistently (> versus >=, or not at all at block import). No assumptions used by other components change.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — DoS Mitigation A fixed cap limits the DoS potential of a single transaction.
  • eip.md · Changes to EVM Behavior — Txpool Validation / Block Validation Enforcement must be consistent between the txpool and block validation.
Confidence: Medium
Performance risks1The changed resource bound is the maximum gas per transaction. Worst-case single-transaction benchmarks must be re-baselined to the 30M cap, and benchmark workloads that use larger single transactions must be split. These are component-level checks that do not add new resource coupling.
  • eip.md · Motivation — "Validation Overhead" The cap is meant to bound the worst-case execution time of a single transaction.
  • eip.md · Rationale — Why 30 Million? The value is chosen relative to typical block sizes.
Confidence: Medium
Edge/boundary conditions1There is one boundary-sensitive mechanism: the per-transaction gasLimit threshold at 30,000,000. It must be tested with block gas limits above and below the cap and across transaction types, but it remains a single mechanism.
  • eip.md · Changes to EVM Behavior — "`gasLimit` > 30 million" A single threshold: a gasLimit of exactly 30M is valid and 30M+1 is invalid.
  • eip.md · Protocol Adjustment — "independent of the block gas limit" The cap applies independently of the block gas limit.
Confidence: High
Cross-EIP interactions1The cap must be checked for compatibility across all existing typed transactions and alongside the existing transaction gasLimit-versus-block-gas-limit rule. These are local compatibility checks, and the cap can otherwise be tested independently. No candidate EIPs were supplied.
  • eip.md · Protocol Adjustment — "independent of the block gas limit" The cap coexists with the existing block-gas-limit validity rules.
  • eip.md · Gas Cap — "any single transaction" The cap applies to all transaction types defined by earlier EIPs.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Interactions with intrinsic or floor gas rules that might require gasLimit > 30M for large calldata or initcode are not discussed in the supplied text.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified1Several localized details are omitted: the precedence of this check relative to other validity checks, whether protocol system calls are exempt, and the exact error identifier. The normative Specification section consistently uses gasLimit > 30M, which supports one intended outcome for consensus validity. Level 1 fits.
  • eip.md · Abstract — "maximum gas usage per transaction" The abstract talks about gas used, while the specification checks the gasLimit field.
  • eip.md · Gas Cap — "(e.g., `MAX_GAS_LIMIT_EXCEEDED`)" The error code is given only as an example.
  • eip.md · Specification Does not address system calls, check ordering, or a named constant or activation.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: If the 'gas usage' wording in the abstract were taken as normative, competing outcomes would arise (level 2).
Show 18 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No new instructions.
Modified opcodes0Opcode semantics are unchanged. The GASLIMIT opcode still reports the block gas limit.
  • eip.md · Specification No instruction semantics change.
Added precompiles0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompiles.
Modified precompiles0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile changes.
Added system contracts0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No contracts are introduced.
Modified system contractsUnder-specified0No system contract rules change. Whether the cap applies to system calls is not stated (see UNSP), but the cap is defined for transactions only.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contracts are referenced.
Uncertainty: If the cap were read as applying to system calls, existing system-call conventions might be affected.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Only transaction- and block-level gasLimit validation is specified. No instruction-level access or charging order changes.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob-gas accounting rule changes.
  • eip.md · Gas Cap The cap applies to the transaction gasLimit. Blob gas is not mentioned.
State gas accounting changes0State-write accounting is unchanged.
  • eip.md · Motivation — "State Bloat Risks" State growth is given as motivation only. No state-gas accounting is specified.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund mechanism is introduced.
New transaction types0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No new transaction envelope.
New block / header fields0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No header fields are added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No schema or codec change. Only the range of valid values for an existing field changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Only constrains the value of the existing gasLimit field.
New fork activation mechanism0Activation only selects the new rule. There is no one-time state transition.
  • eip.md · Specification No state migration or code installation is specified.
Engine API changes0No Engine API field or endpoint changes. Payloads with an oversized transaction are rejected as invalid through the existing status rules.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API changes are specified.
Transition-tool interface changes0The cap is a fork-dependent constant. Rejected transactions are reported through the existing rejection or exception reporting. No interface change is required.
  • eip.md · Protocol Adjustment A fixed constant cap that requires no new input or output fields.
Uncertainty: A new error identifier (`MAX_GAS_LIMIT_EXCEEDED`) may need to be mapped in exception reporting. That is a value, not a field change.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Baseline tests need no new assertion. Changed validity outcomes are rework, scored under PAT.
  • eip.md · Specification No new log, receipt, header or storage output is introduced.
Cryptography0No cryptographic changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No cryptographic content.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@8096a3a13a EIPS/eip-7825.md committed 2024-12-02 · information cutoff 2025-02-21T01:11:23Z
Current master · File history · blob 47cbfed315 · sha256 d8c7ec66e85f
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/osaka/eip-7825.yaml · sha256 6ae1ed579831
Compare EIP-7825 with other assessmentsAll 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.

  • 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.