EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7954: Increase Maximum Contract Size

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

RetrospectiveAmsterdam / GlamsterdamAssessment cutoff 2026-01-20Included by cutoffLayers: execution

LLM Completescore 14

Human Not available· The STEEL team did not publish a human checklist for this EIP in the Amsterdam assessment round.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: 2026-08-25 · Spec revision: 2026-01-18 · e43e899bb1

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, EIP-7954 proposed raising the maximum deployed contract code size from 24,576 to 32,768 bytes and the maximum initcode size from 49,152 to 65,536 bytes. This changes the EIP-170 contract-creation result threshold and the EIP-3860 create-transaction and CREATE/CREATE2 initcode thresholds, while the proposal states that only the size limits change. Activation requires a network upgrade, and the proposal identifies a marginal denial-of-service risk from permitting larger contracts.

14MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: No
Plausible range: 14–14 (Medium)
Assessment cutoff: 2026-01-20 · EIP revision e43e899bb1 (2026-01-18)

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
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms2
Security risks2
Performance risks2

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: No

The EIP text available at the assessment cutoff left material behavior unresolved. The affected criteria and the plausible total range record that uncertainty.

The assessor found no material behavior left unresolved by the EIP text at the cutoff.

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (2)

The increased initcode maximum lets the unchanged EIP-3860 metering formula apply over a larger admissible range. This assessment treats that as a validity and opcode-behavior change, not an EVM gas-accounting rule change, because no cost or formula is modified.
The supporting EIP-3860 text mentions CREATE2's EIP-1014 hash-cost mechanism, but EIP-7954 neither identifies EIP-1014 as a requirement nor changes that gas mechanism; therefore only EIPs 170 and 3860 are recorded as interacting EIPs.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7954 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes	3	At least CREATE and CREATE2 have non-gas behavior modified for initcode in the newly admitted range. The rubric assigns score 3 whenever any pre-existing opcode behavior changes apart from gas changes.	eip.md · Specification, lines 22-25 EIP-7954 raises EIP-3860's initcode maximum from 48 KiB to 64 KiB. supporting/eip-3860.md · Rules, lines 55-60 The EIP-3860 limit governs whether CREATE and CREATE2 exceptionally abort; inputs above the old limit but at or below the new limit therefore change opcode outcome. Confidence: High
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	2	The validity threshold of an existing create transaction is modified and its boundary tests must change, but updates are localized and require no testing infrastructure redesign. This matches score 2.	eip.md · Specification, lines 22-25 The EIP raises EIP-3860's initcode size limit from 48 KiB to 64 KiB. supporting/eip-3860.md · Rules, lines 55-60 EIP-3860 makes a create transaction invalid when its initcode exceeds the maximum, so raising the maximum changes validity for transactions in the intervening range. supporting/eip-3860.md · Test Cases, lines 105-113 Existing tests exercise creation transactions at the maximum and maximum plus one, showing the limited boundary updates required. Confidence: High
Security risks	2	The larger caps slightly relax existing denial-of-service bounds and touch a limited set of code-loading, preprocessing, proof, and initcode-analysis components. That alters existing security assumptions enough for targeted review or fuzzing but is not the broad critical interaction of score 3, so the score is 2.	eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 37-39 The EIP expressly says the higher contract size limit may marginally increase denial-of-service risk, while calling the new limit conservative. supporting/eip-170.md · Rationale, lines 23-25 EIP-170's cap mitigates a linear-cost vulnerability spanning disk reads, VM code preprocessing, and proof data. supporting/eip-3860.md · Motivation and Security Considerations, lines 22-34 and 114-120 The initcode limit and metering protect jump-destination analysis, an existing denial-of-service-sensitive client path. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The proposal calls the increase marginal but provides no quantitative security analysis of the proposed thresholds.
Performance risks	2	Raising both caps expands worst-case inputs across several existing performance paths, so validation is not confined to a new isolated mechanism. The EIP describes the increment as marginal and conservative, supporting the limited-impact score-2 anchor rather than substantial score 3.	eip.md · Motivation and Security Considerations, lines 18-20 and 37-39 The proposal permits larger contracts while seeking reasonable growth constraints and characterizes the resulting denial-of-service increase as marginal with a conservative new limit. supporting/eip-170.md · Rationale, lines 23-25 The code-size cap bounds linear disk reads, VM preprocessing, and Merkle proof data, which are existing performance-sensitive paths. supporting/eip-3860.md · Motivation and Reason for size limit, lines 22-24 and 81-85 The initcode cap bounds linearly scaling jump-destination analysis and helps constrain worst-case performance searches. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package supplies qualitative risk statements and the prior mechanisms' scaling rationale, but no benchmark of the proposed new limits.
Edge/boundary conditions	2	Two boundary-prone mechanisms must be covered, and the initcode threshold has three execution or validation paths. These are multiple boundary conditions, but none requires the elevated combinatorial case count of score 3, so the score is 2.	eip.md · Specification, lines 22-25 The proposal changes two distinct byte-length boundaries: deployed runtime code and initcode. supporting/eip-170.md · Specification, lines 19-21 The runtime-code boundary distinguishes lengths at the maximum from lengths greater than it, with over-limit creation failing out of gas. supporting/eip-3860.md · Rules and Test Cases, lines 55-60 and 105-113 The initcode boundary applies through transaction invalidity and exceptional aborts for CREATE and CREATE2, with explicit maximum and maximum-plus-one cases. Confidence: High
Cross-EIP interactions	2	The proposal directly modifies two prior EIPs and their related transaction and opcode boundary tests. Coordination is required, but the interactions are limited to two size constants and their existing failure paths, matching score 2.	eip.md · Front matter and Specification, lines 1-12 and 22-25 EIP-7954 formally requires EIPs 170 and 3860 and directly replaces one limit defined by each. supporting/eip-170.md · Parameters and Specification, lines 14-21 EIP-170 defines the maximum deployed code size and the creation-failure rule that the proposal modifies. supporting/eip-3860.md · Abstract and Rules, lines 14-20 and 55-60 EIP-3860 ties its initcode maximum to EIP-170 and applies it to creation transactions, CREATE, and CREATE2, requiring coordinated boundary coverage. Confidence: High Interacting EIPs: EIP-170, EIP-3860
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	Existing tests at and around the old code and initcode limits need updated inputs or expectations. This is a minor, narrow subset of creation tests, so score 1 fits better than the considerable-subset anchor.	eip.md · Specification, lines 22-25 Both previously established size thresholds are replaced with larger exact values. supporting/eip-3860.md · Test Cases, lines 105-113 Existing EIP-3860 tests explicitly cover the initcode maximum and one byte above it for CREATE, CREATE2, and creation transactions. supporting/eip-170.md · Specification, lines 19-21 EIP-170 makes creation fail when returned code is more than its maximum, establishing an existing boundary expectation affected by the new value. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The package does not enumerate the full pre-existing test corpus, but it does identify the boundary cases that necessarily change.

Show 21 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No opcode is added, matching score 0.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 22-31 The proposal updates limits inherited from EIPs 170 and 3860 and introduces no new opcode.
Added precompiles	No new precompile is introduced, so the score is 0.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 22-31 The size-limit update adds no precompile.
Modified precompiles	No pre-existing precompile is modified, matching score 0.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 22-31 The size-limit update does not name or modify precompile logic or gas accounting.
Added system contracts	No system contract is added, so the score is 0.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 22-31 The proposal changes constants governing ordinary contract creation and does not introduce a system contract.
Modified system contracts	There is no direct or identified indirect system-contract modification, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 22-31 The proposal changes general code and initcode size limits without naming or altering any pre-existing system contract.
EVM Gas rule changes	Raising an admissibility threshold allows the existing metering formula to cover larger inputs, but it neither updates nor introduces a gas-accounting rule. This matches the score-0 anchor.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 22-31 The proposal changes the two size-limit constants and expressly describes the change as limited to those thresholds, with no other protocol changes. supporting/eip-3860.md · Parameters and Rules, lines 42-60 EIP-3860 separately defines the existing per-word initcode gas formula and the maximum-size checks; EIP-7954 changes the latter but specifies no change to the former.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No state-access site or within-opcode ordering rule is changed, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 22-31 The complete normative change consists of two size-limit updates and does not change state access or gas charging relative to state access.
Blob gas accounting changes	There is no blob gas accounting change, satisfying the score-0 anchor.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 22-31 The proposal is confined to deployed-code and initcode size limits and introduces no blob-related rule.
State gas accounting changes	A code-size admission cap is not a state-gas charging rule, and none of the state-gas mechanisms named by this anchor changes. The score is 0.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 22-31 Only maximum code and initcode lengths are changed; no state-byte cost, state-gas budget, reservoir, or spill rule is specified.
New EVM gas refund	No gas-refund mechanism is introduced or modified, matching score 0.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 22-31 The proposal changes only size limits and contains no refund behavior.
New transaction types	No transaction type is introduced, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 22-25 The proposal changes limits applicable to existing creation behavior and defines no transaction envelope or type.
New block / header fields	No block or header field is added, matching score 0.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 22-31 The proposal changes two creation-related constants and introduces no block or header field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	Permitting a larger payload within an existing representation is not an RLP, SSZ, or interface encoding change. The score is 0.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 22-31 The proposal adjusts byte-length limits but does not change transaction, block, or interface encoding.
Block syncing changes	Although create-transaction validity changes, block encoding and RLP validation do not. Under this anchor's RLP-specific definition, the score is 0.	eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 22-35 The hard-fork change concerns contract-creation size limits and specifies no new block RLP validation mechanism.
New fork activation mechanism	A normal hard-fork rule change is not itself the activation mechanism scored here. No state or internal variable is modified at activation, so the score is 0.	eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 22-35 The limit change requires a network upgrade, but the proposal specifies no activation-block state mutation or modification of an internal variable.
Engine API changes	No Engine API change is introduced, matching score 0.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 22-31 The proposal contains only two size-limit changes and no Engine API field, endpoint, or communication mechanism.
Transition-tool interface changes	Ordinary fork selection can select the constants; no transition-tool interface field or mechanism is required. The score is 0.	eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 22-35 The proposal specifies two fork-gated constant changes and no new input or output field for a state transition tool.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Boundary tests change their expected result, but pre-existing tests do not gain an additional invariant to assert. This is the score-0 case.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 22-31 The proposal replaces two validation thresholds and adds no new output or property that unrelated tests must assert.
New test-framework primitives	Existing transaction and opcode test primitives suffice for updated boundary cases, so no new framework primitive is required and the score is 0.	eip.md · Specification, lines 22-25 The normative change is expressible as ordinary length-boundary behavior for contract creation and initcode. supporting/eip-3860.md · Test Cases, lines 105-113 The underlying mechanism's tests are conventional creation cases at the maximum and maximum plus one, with no special expectation abstraction described.
Cryptography	Existing hashing may process a larger admissible initcode input, but no cryptographic mechanism changes. The score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 22-31 The proposal changes only code-size limits and introduces no cryptographic algorithm or functionality. supporting/eip-3860.md · Gas cost per word, lines 75-79 The supporting EIP mentions existing CREATE2 hash-cost compatibility, but EIP-7954 does not alter that mechanism.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	Substituting the two exact constants into the linked rules determines equality and over-limit behavior for transaction and opcode paths. No constructible case in the described scope requires a new cross-client agreement, so the score is 0.	eip.md · Specification, lines 22-25 The proposal gives exact replacement values for both affected maximum-size constants. supporting/eip-170.md · Specification, lines 19-21 The inherited runtime-code rule precisely specifies failure for a returned length greater than the maximum. supporting/eip-3860.md · Parameters and Rules, lines 42-60 The inherited initcode rules precisely distinguish over-limit transaction invalidity from CREATE/CREATE2 exceptional abort and retain an exact gas formula.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@e43e899bb1 EIPS/eip-7954.md committed 2026-01-18 · information cutoff 2026-01-20T14:22:47Z
Current master · File history · blob d3dde5b7cd · sha256 1bf217c99adf
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/amsterdam/eip-7954.yaml · sha256 a66e9938499f
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-170.md, supporting/eip-3860.md

Compare EIP-7954 with other assessments All Amsterdam / Glamsterdam 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.