Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8077: eth/XX - announce transactions with nonce

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 15
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: · Spec revision: 2026-08-25 · ac450a4ab2 · Inclusion status at snapshot: PFI

Scope at the cutoff. Draft execution-layer networking proposal that extends the eth protocol's NewPooledTransactionHashes announcement with transaction source and nonce. This assessment covers only execution-client peer-to-peer encoding and message handling; the snapshot expressly makes no EVM consensus or hard-fork change.

15MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 4 criteria affected
Plausible range
11–15 (Low–Medium)
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

  1. Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3
  2. Performance risks3
  3. Edge/boundary conditions3
  4. Security risks2

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: Material localized details are missing for malformed parallel-list validation, assignment of the concrete eth protocol version, quantitative announcement overhead, and mandatory handling of false metadata.

Plausible total

11–15
recorded score 15 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)
  • Must all five announcement arrays have identical lengths, and what exact action follows a cardinality mismatch?
  • What concrete eth protocol version replaces eth/XX, and what positive and negative negotiation vectors apply?
  • What announcement-size, peer-fanout, and push-versus-announcement parameters bound the stated significant overhead?
  • Is disconnecting or otherwise penalizing a peer mandatory for a false source or nonce, or is the response implementation-defined?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • The positional relationship among five arrays is implied by indexed notation but no malformed-length behavior is stated.
  • The source and nonce are explicitly unverified until fetch, while receiver scheduling based on them is intentionally left to implementations.
  • The overhead section contains a TBD and alternatives leave peer fanout and announcement strategy open.
  • The phrase "can be treated as a node that violated the protocol" does not define a mandatory peer-management action.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8077 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3The rubric's binary high anchor applies because an interface-level wire encoding is changed.
  • eip.md · Specification > NewPooledTransactionHashes message changes The 0x08 interface encoding changes from three components in eth/69 to five components in eth/XX by adding source and nonce arrays.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The numeric eth/XX version is unset, but the specified interface encoding change itself is explicit.
Performance risksUnder-specified3End-to-end benefit and cost cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation: every detailed announcement is larger, while traffic and fetching outcomes interact with peer fanout, redundant announcements, scheduling, and the push/announcement threshold. The text itself characterizes the overhead as significant.
  • eip.md · Rationale > Overhead The proposal calls the added B_20 and variable-size field overhead significant and leaves quantitative details TBD.
  • eip.md · Rationale > Alternatives Bandwidth depends on peer fanout, announcement redundancy, push-versus-pull selection, and optional detailed-announcement strategies.
  • eip.md · Specification > Changes to message handling Implementations may revisit eager-push versus announcement selection because announcements become larger.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Quantitative overhead is explicitly TBD and receiver scheduling and sender thresholds are not mandated.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3Multiple edge-prone mechanisms are present: cardinality and positional correlation across five arrays, value-size boundaries, and deferred match-versus-mismatch verification across the full tuple. Malformed cardinalities and per-field mismatch combinations produce an elevated case matrix.
  • eip.md · Specification > NewPooledTransactionHashes message changes Each announcement is represented by five positionally associated arrays, including fixed-size source and variable-size nonce values.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations Source and nonce remain unverifiable until fetch, and any tuple mismatch must be treated as a protocol violation.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The text does not define malformed-list handling, so the exact boundary matrix cannot yet be baselined.
Security risksUnder-specified2The new unverified metadata crosses into fetch scheduling and peer-violation handling, altering assumptions in a limited set of networking components and warranting targeted malformed-message and mismatch review.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations Recipients cannot verify source and nonce until fetching the transaction, must not trust them, and may treat a mismatch as a peer protocol violation.
  • eip.md · Specification > Changes to message handling Receivers may use the unverified metadata for transaction-fetch scheduling decisions.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The text says the protocol is not compromised, but it does not mandate the exact peer response or scheduling safeguards.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2Localized wire-test answers remain unsettled: the concrete protocol version, acceptance or rejection of unequal parallel-list lengths, and mandatory handling of invalid tuples must be agreed before common positive and negative vectors can be baselined.
  • eip.md · Front matter and Specification > NewPooledTransactionHashes message changes The proposal remains Draft, names the new protocol eth/XX, and specifies five parallel vectors without malformed-cardinality rules.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations A tuple mismatch is called a protocol violation, but the resulting required peer behavior is not specified.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Positional correspondence and rejection of malformed inputs have an apparent intent, but the snapshot does not state the testable rules.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1Message-specific encoding and invalid-announcement tests need a version-aware expected shape and mismatch cases, but the impact is confined to a minor subset of eth protocol tests.
  • eip.md · Specification > NewPooledTransactionHashes message changes The existing 0x08 message gains two parallel arrays in the new eth protocol version.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations A mismatch between any announced tuple field and a fetched transaction becomes a protocol violation.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The package contains no test inventory, so the exact number of pre-existing message tests is unknown.
Cross-EIP interactions1EIP-8077 has one limited dependency on the eth/69 protocol baseline and remains independently testable for most announcement behavior.
  • eip.md · Front matter and Specification > NewPooledTransactionHashes message changes EIP-8077 requires EIP-7642 and defines its new message shape relative to the eth/69 baseline.
  • supporting/eip-7642.md · Backwards Compatibility EIP-7642 establishes eth/69 as a versioned eth protocol that can coexist with eth/68.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: No additional direct EIP interaction is established by the sealed package.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-7642
Show 21 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is added.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The proposal expressly leaves EVM consensus rules unchanged.
Uncertainty: No EVM instruction is specified.
Modified opcodes0No existing opcode behavior is modified or deprecated.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The proposal expressly leaves EVM consensus rules unchanged.
Uncertainty: The specification has no opcode surface.
Added precompiles0No precompile is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification The sole specified data change is to NewPooledTransactionHashes.
Uncertainty: No precompile address, input, output, or gas rule is described.
Modified precompiles0No existing precompile logic or gas accounting is modified.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility EVM consensus rules remain unchanged.
Uncertainty: The proposal is isolated to peer announcement encoding and handling.
Added system contracts0No system contract is introduced.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The proposal makes no EVM consensus change and needs no hard fork.
Uncertainty: No contract code, address, state, or system action appears in the specification.
Modified system contracts0No pre-existing system contract is directly or indirectly modified.
  • eip.md · Specification Normative changes are confined to an eth networking message and its handling.
Uncertainty: The proposed scheduling improvements are mempool behaviors, not system-contract effects.
EVM Gas rule changes0The wire-protocol announcement extension introduces no EVM gas-accounting rule.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The proposal expressly states that it does not change EVM consensus rules.
Uncertainty: No EVM gas surface is described anywhere in the proposal.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode execution or ordering of state access relative to gas charging changes.
  • eip.md · Specification > NewPooledTransactionHashes message changes The only normative data change is to an eth peer-to-peer message.
Uncertainty: The proposal has no opcode-execution surface.
Blob gas accounting changes0The announcement metadata does not alter blob-gas accounting.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The proposal states that EVM consensus rules are unchanged and no hard fork is required.
Uncertainty: Blob transactions are discussed only as a propagation-design alternative, not as a gas change.
State gas accounting changes0No state-write charge, state-gas budget, reservoir, or spill rule changes.
  • eip.md · Specification > NewPooledTransactionHashes message changes The specification adds source and nonce arrays to a networking message.
Uncertainty: The proposal's use of current chain state for filtering is non-normative and does not alter state gas.
New EVM gas refund0No EVM refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The proposal expressly leaves EVM consensus rules unchanged.
Uncertainty: There is no gas-refund behavior in the execution-client networking change.
New transaction types0No transaction type is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification > NewPooledTransactionHashes message changes Existing transaction announcements gain metadata while retaining the existing transaction-type vector.
Uncertainty: The proposal applies to announcements and explicitly does not restrict itself to one existing transaction category.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Announcement validity and peer handling change, but transaction validity rules and intrinsic gas do not.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations A metadata mismatch is a peer-protocol violation discovered after the transaction hash is verified.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility EVM consensus rules remain unchanged.
Uncertainty: The protocol-violation rule must not be conflated with consensus transaction validity.
New block / header fields0No block or block-header field is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification Source and nonce are added to a pooled-transaction announcement message.
Uncertainty: The message's transaction metadata is not block data.
Block syncing changes0No block RLP validation or client block-sync mechanism is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification The changed message announces pooled transaction metadata, not blocks or receipts.
Uncertainty: Transaction fetching from the mempool is distinct from the rubric's block-syncing surface.
New fork activation mechanism0No state or internal variable is modified at a fork-activation block.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The change rolls out through a new wire-protocol version and does not require a hard fork.
Uncertainty: Protocol-version negotiation replaces any fork-block activation surface.
Engine API changes0No Engine API endpoint, field, or communication mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Abstract The proposal extends a devp2p eth protocol message.
Uncertainty: The execution-layer surface is peer-to-peer networking only.
Transition-tool interface changes0No state-transition-tool field or mechanism is added.
  • eip.md · Specification The specification is limited to the eth NewPooledTransactionHashes message and its handling.
Uncertainty: The proposal requires no hard fork and describes no block transition input.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Tests unrelated to the new announcement version are not required to assert a new fork-wide output.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Older clients and the previous protocol version remain usable while the new version is rolled out.
Uncertainty: New message-specific assertions belong to this EIP's tests, not to every pre-existing test.
New test-framework primitives0Existing wire-message encoding and assertion primitives suffice; no new reusable test abstraction is required by the text.
  • eip.md · Specification > NewPooledTransactionHashes message changes The added values use fixed-byte, scalar, and list forms in the existing message notation.
  • supporting/eip-7642.md · Specification The eth/69 baseline already specifies peer messages with fixed-byte, scalar, and list encodings.
Uncertainty: The package gives no test-framework implementation, but the specification introduces no novel expectation type.
Cryptography0Source and nonce are announced metadata; the proposal introduces or modifies no cryptographic mechanism.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations A received transaction's existing hash verification exposes a metadata mismatch after fetching.
Uncertainty: An alternative involving a signed RBF version is explicitly not the proposed design.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-8077.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob a1f03e910d · sha256 fdbb52add5a5
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-8077.yaml · sha256 73527d012eb4
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-7642.md
Compare EIP-8077 with other assessmentsAll 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.

  • Added opcodes
    Introduces new opcodes
    Score anchors
    0
    No new opcodes are introduced.
    1
    A new simple opcode is introduced (no data portion, no complex stack mechanics, and a constant gas cost).
    2
    Multiple new simple opcodes are introduced, or a single new complex opcode is introduced (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
    3
    Multiple new opcodes are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
    • Cryptography opcodes are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" section for a separate assessment.
  • Modified opcodes
    Modifies pre-existing opcodes
    Score anchors
    0
    No pre-existing opcode modifications are introduced.
    3
    At least one pre-existing opcode's behavior is modified (not including gas changes) or a pre-existing opcode is deprecated.
  • Added precompiles
    Introduces new precompiles
    Score anchors
    0
    No new precompiles are introduced.
    1
    A new simple precompile is introduced (constant input length, constant gas cost).
    2
    Multiple new simple precompiles are introduced, or a single new complex precompile is introduced (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
    3
    Multiple new precompiles are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
    • Cryptography precompiles are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" for a separate assessment.
  • Modified precompiles
    Modifies pre-existing precompiles logic or gas-accounting
    Score anchors
    0
    No pre-existing precompiles are modified.
    1
    At least one pre-existing precompile has its gas schedule modified.
    2
    Multiple pre-existing precompiles have their gas schedule modified, or a single pre-existing precompile has its behavior modified.
    3
    The behavior of multiple pre-existing precompiles, or a single complex pre-existing precompile modified.
  • Added system contracts
    Introduces new system contract, stateful or not
    Score anchors
    0
    No new system contracts are introduced.
    1
    A new system contract is introduced that is not stateful nor does it trigger a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
    2
    Multiple new system contracts are introduced or a single new system contract that is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
    3
    Multiple new system contracts are introduced and at least one of them is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
  • Modified system contracts
    Modifies pre-existing system contracts
    Score anchors
    0
    No modifications to pre-existing system contracts are introduced, directly or indirectly.
    1
    Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has minor indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
    2
    Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has major indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
    3
    At least one pre-existing system contract code or state is modified, which would involve irregular state transition or a similarly complex transition methodology.

Gas and accounting

Execution, blob, and state gas rules, refunds, and where charges happen inside opcodes.

  • EVM Gas rule changes
    New EVM gas accounting rules
    Score anchors
    0
    No gas accounting changes.
    1
    Existing gas accounting mechanism is updated.
    2
    A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
    3
    A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
  • State-access ordering within opcode execution · Checklist revision 2 only
    Changes *where inside an opcode's execution* state is accessed, or where gas is charged relative to that access. Because a state access is recorded in the block-level access list only if execution had enough gas to reach it, this ordering is consensus-critical: moving it changes the BAL at every gas boundary of every affected opcode.
    Score anchors
    0
    No change to where state is accessed, or to where gas is charged relative to a state access, within any opcode.
    1
    A single opcode's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
    2
    Multiple opcodes' ordering changes, or a new state-accessing operation is introduced whose position in the order must be settled.
    3
    The ordering rule changes for a whole class of state-accessing opcodes at once, or what counts as a recordable state access is redefined — requiring existing BAL vectors to be re-derived across opcodes and forks.
    • Distinct from "Modified opcodes", which asks whether an opcode's **result** changed. This row asks about the **path to the result**, which is observable even when the result is identical. An EIP can be 0 on that row and 3 on this one.
    • Score changes **to** the ordering. Do not score the fact that state accesses are observable — they always are.
    • Each boundary must be re-tested against every other dimension that can change the answer (cold/warm, static/non-static, delegated/direct, revert/success), so the case count grows multiplicatively rather than additively. Note this explicitly under Special Considerations.
  • Blob gas accounting changes
    New Blob gas accounting rules which potentially affect pre-existing tests
    Score anchors
    0
    No blob gas accounting changes.
    1
    Existing blob gas accounting mechanism is updated.
    2
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
    3
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
  • State gas accounting changes · Checklist revision 2 only
    New state gas accounting rules. State gas is the cost of *writing* state, as opposed to accessing or executing it: `StateGasCosts`, `COST_PER_STATE_BYTE`, the block-level state gas budget, and the spill path into execution gas.
    Score anchors
    0
    No state gas accounting changes.
    1
    An existing state gas cost or `STATE_BYTES_PER_*` rate is adjusted.
    2
    A new state-gas-charging site is introduced, or the block-level state gas budget or reservoir allocation is modified.
    3
    A new state gas charging mechanism is introduced, or the spill interaction between state gas and execution gas is modified, affecting existing gas tests.
    • Harder to test than blob gas: the spill path means state gas cannot be metered independently of execution gas, and some costs (e.g. `NEW_ACCOUNT`) are state-dependent.
  • New EVM gas refund
    New gas-refund mechanism
    Score anchors
    0
    No new gas-refund mechanisms are introduced.
    1
    A new simple gas-refund mechanism is introduced that does not affect either existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    2
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced or a simple mechanism that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    3
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.

Blocks, transactions, and encoding

Transaction types and validity, block and header fields, encodings, syncing, and activation-time changes.

  • New transaction types
    Introduces a new transaction type
    Score anchors
    0
    No new transaction types are introduced.
    3
    A new transaction type is introduced.
  • New or modified transaction validity mechanisms
    Creates new or modifies pre-existing transaction types' validation mechanisms
    Score anchors
    0
    No changes are introduced to the validity rules of existing transaction types or to their intrinsic gas cost calculation.
    1
    Minor adjustments are introduced to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation, but they do not significantly affect existing tests.
    2
    Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation affect existing tests, but require only limited updates to test cases and no redesign of the testing infrastructure.
    3
    Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation require extensive rework or redesign of the tests or testing infrastructure.
  • New block / header fields
    Introduces new block or block header fields
    Score anchors
    0
    No new block or header fields are introduced.
    3
    A new block or header field is introduced.
  • Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)
    Introduces encoding changes at the transaction/block/interfaces level
    Score anchors
    0
    No encoding changes are introduced at the transaction, block, or interfaces levels.
    3
    An encoding change is introduced at transaction, block or interfaces level (e.g. RLP -> SSZ).
    • "Interfaces level" includes the Engine API. Score an Engine API encoding change (e.g. JSON -> SSZ) here.
  • Block syncing changes
    Modifies block RLP validation mechanisms that require test client syncing.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
    1
    A single simple RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
    2
    Multiple simple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced or a single complex one.
    3
    Multiple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is deemed complex.
  • New fork activation mechanism
    Modifies state, internal variables, or similar, at the fork activation block
    Score anchors
    0
    No state modifications, internal variables or similar are modified at the fork activation block.
    3
    Either a state modification or internal variables are modified at the fork activation block.
    • Initialization of new internal variable is not considered a modification.

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

  • Engine API changes
    Introduces new fields to the Engine API directives
    Score anchors
    0
    No new fields or communication mechanisms are introduced to the Engine API.
    1
    A single new field is introduced in one of the Engine API endpoints.
    2
    Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points, or a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
    3
    Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points and a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
  • Engine API encoding changes · Checklist revision 1 only
    Engine API encoding changes (the revision-1 template defines no anchor text for this row).
  • Transition-tool interface changes
    Modifies or adds new fields to the transition tool interface.
    Score anchors
    0
    No modifications to the transition tool interface are required.
    1
    A single new field needs to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    2
    Multiple new fields or a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    3
    Multiple new fields and a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    • Special consideration must be paid to this section if the EIP introduces a mechanism that requires the state transition tool to be aware whether the block it is processing is the fork-activation block.

Testing impact

Rework, new invariants, and new primitives required in the test framework.

  • Patterns affecting pre-existing tests
    Implements a new validation mechanism or rule that translates in reworking pre-existing tests
    Score anchors
    0
    No pre-existing tests are affected by this change.
    1
    Minor subset of existing tests are affected by this change.
    2
    Considerable subset of existing tests are affected by this change but involves only a contrived category of tests.
    3
    Major subset of existing tests are affected, including diverse category of tests (benchmarks, static, multiple forks, etc.).
  • New invariant on pre-existing tests · Checklist revision 2 only
    Tests that are **not about this EIP** must nonetheless assert something this EIP produces. Their logic does not change; they gain a new thing to check.
    Score anchors
    0
    Pre-existing tests assert nothing new.
    1
    A narrow, contrived category of pre-existing tests gains a new assertion.
    2
    A broad category gains a new assertion, applied mechanically.
    3
    Every test in the fork gains the assertion regardless of what it tests, and pre-fork vectors must be re-derived to satisfy it.
    • Paired with the row above, and easy to confuse with it. "Patterns affecting pre-existing tests" asks whether existing tests must be **reworked**; this row asks whether they must **additionally assert something new**. Score both — an EIP can be low on one and high on the other.
  • New test-framework primitives · Checklist revision 2 only
    Requires new abstractions in the test framework itself — expectation types, modifiers, helpers — beyond writing test functions with what already exists.
    Score anchors
    0
    Existing test primitives suffice.
    1
    Existing primitives need minor extension.
    2
    New expectation or modifier primitives are required, reusable within this EIP's own test suite.
    3
    New framework-level primitives are required that become a permanent part of the framework and are used by other EIPs' tests.

Risk and validation

Security, performance, boundary conditions, and cryptography that need validation.

  • Security risks
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms that could compromise the security of the chain, users, validators, or other stakeholders, if not implemented properly.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new mechanisms are introduced that could pose a security risk.
    1
    The introduced mechanisms are self-contained, can be validated in isolation, and do not alter existing invariants that could pose a security risk for any stakeholders.
    2
    The introduced mechanisms interact with a limited number of existing components, slightly altering their security assumptions and requiring a targeted security review or fuzzing.
    3
    The introduced mechanisms interact with multiple existing components, including critical ones, substantially altering their security assumptions and requiring an extensive security review and fuzzing.
  • Performance risks
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms and requires performance validation.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new mechanisms are introduced that require performance validation.
    1
    The introduced mechanisms can be benchmarked in isolation and do not affect existing performance behavior.
    2
    The introduced mechanisms cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation, but they only have a limited impact on the existing performance benchmarks.
    3
    The introduced mechanisms cannot be benchmarked in isolation and have a substantial impact on existing performance benchmarks or have complex interactions with existing mechanisms.
  • Edge/boundary conditions
    Feature contains edge/boundary conditions.
    Score anchors
    0
    No discernible edge cases or boundary conditions are introduced.
    1
    A single edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanism is introduced.
    2
    Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced, but none of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
    3
    Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
  • Cryptography
    Introduces new cryptography mechanisms or modifies existing functionality that involves cryptography
    Score anchors
    0
    No cryptography mechanisms are introduced.
    1
    A new cryptography mechanism is introduced but it is a well known mechanism that is known to have vast resources to aid on its testing.
    2
    Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced that are well-known or a single but novel mechanism is introduced that is either untested or has limited resources.
    3
    Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is a novel mechanism.

Coordination

Cross-EIP interactions and behavior that clients must agree on before tests exist.

  • Cross-EIP interactions
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms that affect other EIPs in either the same or past forks.
    Score anchors
    0
    Fully self-contained EIP that does not depend on, modify, or conflict with any other EIP.
    1
    The EIP interacts with one or more other EIPs in a non-critical and limited way but can be tested independently for the most part.
    2
    The EIP depends on or modifies one or more other EIPs such that coordinated testing and consideration is required, but interactions are limited in scope and not complex.
    3
    The EIP has strong interdependencies with multiple EIPs, requiring extensive coordinated cross-EIP testing as well as potential re-design of existing test vectors.
    • +1 for every 3 additional interacting EIPs beyond the first 3, each of which requires its own coordinated test cases. List the EIPs in the rationale.
    • This row is intentionally uncapped, unlike every other anchor: each interacting EIP is another axis of the test matrix, so a ceiling would make a 12-EIP product indistinguishable from a 3-EIP one.
  • Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus · Checklist revision 2 only
    The EIP text does not determine the answer for cases a test can construct. Clients must agree on a previously unspecified detail before tests can be baselined. The cost here is coordination and re-baselining, not test writing.
    Score anchors
    0
    The EIP text determines the answer for every case a test could construct.
    1
    A few details are unspecified but have an obvious intended reading.
    2
    Details require client agreement before tests can be written, but they are localized.
    3
    A previously unspecified *and previously unobservable* behavior becomes consensus-critical; expect tests to be re-baselined on each round of EIP amendment.
    • Score this from the EIP's state at assessment time: whether it has client implementations, whether it has been through a devnet, and how many open questions remain on its discussion thread.