EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7851: Code-Controlled EOA Delegation

Assessed in Hegotá. The score describes the EIP text available at the snapshot, not the EIP as it stands today.

ProspectiveHegotáSnapshot 2026-08-25PFI at snapshotLayers: execution

LLM Completescore 23

Human Pending· No STEEL checklist existed on the ethspecs/pm default branch or in any open pull request at the snapshot.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: 2026-08-26 · Spec revision: 2026-08-25 · ac450a4ab2 · Inclusion status at snapshot: PFI

Scope at the cutoff. Execution-layer assessment of the Draft EIP-7851 snapshot. The proposal extends EIP-7702 with an ECDSA-disabled delegation prefix, adds the state-writing SETSELFDELEGATE opcode, changes delegated-code recognition, and adds authorization, transaction-validity, and transaction-pool rules.

23HighHigh

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 3 criteria affected
Plausible range: 23–25 (High)
Snapshot: 2026-08-25 · EIP revision ac450a4ab2 (2026-08-25)

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

Modified opcodes3
Security risks3
Edge/boundary conditions3
State-access ordering within opcode execution2

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 opcode byte is TBD. The snapshot also does not fully specify charge and state-access ordering or how its new code write participates in a separate block-level state-gas regime. These omissions are confined to the directly affected anchors.

Plausible total

23–25
recorded score 23 · plausible tiers High

Affected criteria (3)

State-access ordering within opcode execution (2)
State gas accounting changes (0)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (2)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)

What byte value is assigned to SETSELFDELEGATE_OPCODE?
At what point is fixed gas charged relative to stack validation, the static check, raw-code access, no-op decisions, and the write?
Does a successful code replacement incur distinct state gas or affect a state-gas budget or spill path, and if so how?
Which opcode accesses or writes are recordable in the block-level access list at each gas boundary?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (2)

Special consideration: gas-boundary vectors multiply across static/non-static context, enabled/disabled prefix, valid/invalid code shape, zero/nonzero delegate, success/no-op, revert/success, and re-entrant/direct execution.
ECDSA-authenticated transaction is not enumerated by type, so the breadth of sender-code validity coverage must be explicit in tests.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7851 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes	3	Existing code-executing opcodes obtain a different result for the new recognized prefix; any such non-gas behavior modification mandates score 3.	eip.md · Specification > Delegated Code Execution Clients must treat new 0xef0101 identically to existing 0xef0100 for delegated code execution. supporting/eip-7702.md · Specification > Set code transaction > Behavior > Delegation indicator Delegation affects CALL, CALLCODE, DELEGATECALL, STATICCALL, transaction destinations, CODESIZE, and CODECOPY. Confidence: High Uncertainty: Existing-operation vectors must be repeated for the second prefix.
Security risks	3	A defect can permanently affect user control and funds while interacting with multiple critical execution and authorization components, requiring extensive review and fuzzing.	eip.md · Security Considerations, first two paragraphs Disabling ECDSA is irreversible, the original key cannot restore it, and wallets are told to treat SETSELFDELEGATE as their highest privilege. eip.md · Specification > SETSELFDELEGATE; Specification > Validation The mechanism changes account code, re-entrant targets, authorization processing, sender validity, and pool admission. Confidence: High Uncertainty: Application-level ECDSA verification remains outside the protection.
Edge/boundary conditions	3	Multiple boundary-prone mechanisms interact, with an elevated matrix across frame locality, re-entrancy, revert, static execution, and raw-code shape.	eip.md · Specification > SETSELFDELEGATE Cases include low-160-bit truncation, zero-address no-op, exact 23-byte raw-code and two-prefix checks, static halt, revert, and success/no-change. eip.md · Specification > SETSELFDELEGATE, frame-local paragraphs; Specification > Validation Loaded frames keep old code while re-entrant calls load the new target; current-state sender and authorization checks add further boundaries. Confidence: High Uncertainty: Gas/access ordering at boundary gas amounts is unspecified.
State-access ordering within opcode executionUnder-specified	2	A new state-accessing and state-writing operation is introduced whose position in the gas/access order must be settled, matching score 2.	eip.md · Specification > SETSELFDELEGATE, execution rules 1-3 The new opcode charges 9500, checks the authority's raw code, and may replace that code, without explicitly ordering the charge and accesses. Confidence: High Uncertainty: Ordering relative to the static check, raw-code read, no-op branches, and code write is not specified.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	2	Existing authorization and sender-validity paths gain a state-dependent branch requiring updated vectors, but no redesigned testing infrastructure.	eip.md · Specification > Validation EIP-7702 authorizations from exact 0xef0101 code are invalid and skipped; an ECDSA transaction from such a sender is invalid for blocks and pools. Confidence: High Uncertainty: ECDSA-authenticated transaction is not enumerated by transaction type, so coverage across existing families must be derived.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	Existing delegation and transaction-validation suites need coordinated updates across several paths, but only for the delegated-EOA category.	eip.md · Specification > Delegated Code Execution; Specification > Validation; Backwards Compatibility Clients must recognize a second delegation prefix across execution and reject or skip ECDSA actions for it; enabled delegations remain unchanged. supporting/eip-7702.md · Specification > Set code transaction > Behavior > Delegation indicator Existing delegation behavior spans CALL, CALLCODE, DELEGATECALL, STATICCALL, transaction destinations, CODESIZE, and CODECOPY. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package has no test inventory, so the exact number of pre-existing vectors needing rework is unavailable.
Performance risks	2	The opcode is locally benchmarkable, but sender-state reads and delegation resolution affect existing pool and execution paths with stated limited impact.	eip.md · Security Considerations, third paragraph Delegated-code lookup can reuse an existing path, while transaction pools may require an additional sender account-code read. eip.md · Specification > SETSELFDELEGATE Success reads and replaces the authority's raw code. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: No benchmarks are packaged; the EIP characterizes execution-load change as small.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	EIP-7851 depends on and modifies EIP-7702 and needs coordinated ecrecover consideration with EIP-8151; the interactions are important but limited.	eip.md · Front matter requires; Abstract; Specification > Validation EIP-7851 requires and extends EIP-7702 delegation execution and authorization processing. eip.md · Security Considerations, final paragraph EIP-8151 is the companion for ecrecover behavior. supporting/eip-8151.md · Specification > Account Code Check EIP-8151 permits only empty or 0xef0100 raw code, distinguishing the disabled 0xef0101 prefix. Confidence: High Uncertainty: Only the two explicit numbered interactions are counted; indirect dependencies of supporting documents are excluded. Interacting EIPs: EIP-7702, EIP-8151
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	2	Clients need agreement on localized details, especially the opcode byte and within-opcode order, before complete vectors can be baselined.	eip.md · Front matter; Specification > Parameters The snapshot is Draft and leaves SETSELFDELEGATE_OPCODE as TBD. eip.md · Specification > SETSELFDELEGATE The opcode charges per attempt and performs raw-code checks and writes, without stating their exact consensus-visible gas/access order. Confidence: High Uncertainty: Implementation, devnet, and discussion evidence is absent from the sealed package and was not consulted.
Added opcodes	1	Under this anchor it is one simple opcode: small stack mechanics and constant gas, despite its stateful semantic importance.	eip.md · Specification > Parameters; Specification > SETSELFDELEGATE One opcode is added with one stack input, one output, no data portion, and a constant 9500 gas cost. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The opcode byte is TBD, but the count and stack/gas shape are explicit.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	Adding a fixed charge for one opcode updates the existing opcode gas-cost mechanism; it does not introduce a separate or dynamic execution-gas model.	eip.md · Specification > Parameters; Specification > SETSELFDELEGATE SETSELFDELEGATE has a fixed cost of 9500 for every execution attempt. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The amount is explicit, but charge ordering relative to checks and state access is unspecified and scored in the state-access-ordering row.

Show 17 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added precompiles	No precompile is introduced by this proposal.	eip.md · Specification; Security Considerations, final paragraph EIP-7851 defines no precompile and leaves ecrecover behavior to companion EIP-8151. Uncertainty: The companion is an interaction, not part of EIP-7851's mechanism.
Modified precompiles	EIP-7851 modifies no existing precompile logic or gas schedule.	eip.md · Security Considerations, final paragraph EIP-7851 does not make direct ECDSA checks reject disabled authorities and points ecrecover behavior to EIP-8151. supporting/eip-8151.md · Abstract; Specification > Modified ecRecover Behavior The companion, rather than EIP-7851, modifies ecrecover. Uncertainty: Coordination with EIP-8151 is scored under Cross-EIP interactions.
Added system contracts	No system contract is introduced.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification The feature consists of an account-code prefix, an opcode, and validation rules; it deploys no protocol-designated contract. Uncertainty: No system-contract surface appears in the snapshot.
Modified system contracts	No direct or indirect system-contract modification is specified.	eip.md · Specification The proposal names no pre-existing system contract or its state. Uncertainty: No system-contract dependency is identified by the package.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced or modified.	eip.md · Specification The complete specification covers delegation execution, one opcode, and ECDSA-related validation; it defines no blob behavior or cost. Uncertainty: No blob surface appears in the snapshot.
State gas accounting changesUnder-specified	No StateGasCosts rate, state-gas charging site, block budget, reservoir, or spill rule is defined, so the documented proposal scores zero.	eip.md · Specification > SETSELFDELEGATE; Rationale, final paragraph Success writes one 23-byte code value, while the only defined charge is the fixed 9500 SETSELFDELEGATE execution-gas cost. Uncertainty: Integration of this new code-writing path with a separate state-gas regime is materially unspecified and recorded separately.
New EVM gas refund	No gas-refund mechanism is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > SETSELFDELEGATE; Rationale, final paragraph Each attempt pays a fixed charge and either writes code or returns zero; no refund action is defined. Uncertainty: EIP-7702's refund is not extended or invoked by EIP-7851's opcode.
New transaction types	The proposal introduces no new transaction type.	eip.md · Specification > Validation Rules apply to EIP-7702 authorization processing and existing ECDSA-authenticated transactions; no transaction type is added. Uncertainty: It depends on the existing EIP-7702 transaction mechanism.
New block / header fields	The block and header schemas are unchanged.	eip.md · Specification No block or header field is defined. Uncertainty: No block/header surface appears in the snapshot.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	An account-code marker is outside this anchor's RLP/SSZ scope.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification The new 0xef0101 sequence is raw account code; no transaction, block, or interface encoding is changed. Uncertainty: EIP-7702 transaction structures are reused without re-encoding.
Block syncing changes	No RLP validation mechanism for block syncing is introduced.	eip.md · Specification No block RLP field or block RLP validation rule is defined. Uncertainty: Transaction validity affects block acceptance but is not block-RLP validation under this anchor.
New fork activation mechanism	No state or internal variable is modified specifically at activation.	eip.md · Specification; Backwards Compatibility Rules apply when new prefixes or actions are encountered; no activation-block state rewrite or internal-variable modification exists. Uncertainty: Existing enabled delegations are explicitly unchanged.
Engine API changes	The Engine API is unchanged.	eip.md · Specification No Engine API field, endpoint, or communication mechanism is specified. Uncertainty: No Engine API surface appears in the package.
Transition-tool interface changes	No transition-tool interface field or mechanism is specified.	eip.md · Specification The proposal changes execution and transaction validation but defines no transition-tool request or response field. Uncertainty: Implementing the rules in a transition tool is distinct from changing its external interface.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	The snapshot defines feature-specific expectations but no new assertion that unrelated pre-existing tests must carry.	eip.md · Specification > SETSELFDELEGATE; Backwards Compatibility New outputs apply to EIP-7851 cases, while existing enabled delegations are explicitly unchanged. Uncertainty: No packaged test-format material identifies a mechanically added invariant outside EIP-7851 cases.
New test-framework primitives	These are expressible with ordinary EVM state and transaction expectations; no new framework abstraction is required by the snapshot.	eip.md · Specification > SETSELFDELEGATE; Specification > Validation Observable outcomes are stack success, exceptional halt, account code, revert behavior, and transaction validity. Uncertainty: No test-framework implementation is packaged, so this is limited to the specified observable outcomes.
Cryptography	No cryptographic primitive or functionality is introduced or modified; an already recovered identity is gated by raw account code.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification > Validation; Rationale, final paragraph The feature disables existing ECDSA authority, and the new opcode performs no signature verification or authority recovery. Uncertainty: ECDSA is context, but its algorithm is unchanged.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-7851.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob a659ac72d4 · sha256 92d7407d2d3c
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/08-hegota-prospective-complexity-assessment/outputs/assessments/hegota-pfi-2026-08-26/eip-7851.yaml · sha256 6934ca2deb9d
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-7702.md, supporting/eip-8151.md

Compare EIP-7851 with other assessments All Hegotá 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.