Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8131: Unified Transaction Content Floor

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

ProspectiveHegotáSnapshot 2026-10-07EIP-8081: CFILayers: execution
LLM Completescore 16
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: 2026-10-07 · 6dac5e7491 · EIP-8081 list: CFI

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-8131 replaces the separate calldata floor (EIP-7623/EIP-7976) and the EIP-7981 access-list data surcharge with one transaction floor: tx_floor = 21000 + 64 × (calldata bytes + 20·access-list addresses + 32·storage keys + 108·EIP-7702 authorizations + 32·EIP-4844 blob versioned hashes). A transaction is valid only if tx.gas >= max(intrinsic, tx_floor), and tx.gasUsed = max(execution_gas_used, tx_floor). Intrinsic gas is stated to be unchanged. The stated goal is to cap user-controlled content at block_gas_limit/64 bytes per block, and it newly brings authorization tuples and blob versioned hashes under the floor. The EIP adds no new transaction type, header field, opcode, precompile or encoding.

16MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 4 criteria affected
Plausible range
13–17 (Medium)
Snapshot
2026-10-07 · EIP revision 6dac5e7491 (2026-10-07)
Score bands · Checklist revision 3
  • Low <12
  • Medium 12–22
  • High ≥23

28 criteria scored 0–3 (4 in exceptional cases; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped); nominal maximum 84.

Complexity profile

Each segment is one criterion's contribution to the LLM total. Hover or focus a segment for its score and rationale.

Top complexity drivers

  1. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests3
  2. Cross-EIP interactions3
  3. New or modified transaction validity mechanisms2
  4. Edge/boundary conditions2

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 EIP states that intrinsic gas is unchanged while also saying it replaces EIP-7981. It does not say whether the EIP-7981 access-list data surcharge, which is part of baseline intrinsic gas and gasUsed, is removed. It also reuses the term execution_gas_used without redefining it relative to EIP-7623's definition, which excludes intrinsic gas.

Plausible total

13–17
recorded score 16 · plausible tiers Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (3)
  • Is the EIP-7981 access_list_data_cost removed from intrinsic gas and gasUsed, or kept alongside the new floor term?
  • Does execution_gas_used in 'tx.gasUsed = max(execution_gas_used, tx_floor)' include intrinsic gas, as the Backwards Compatibility text implies, or follow the EIP-7623 definition?
  • Should AUTH_TUPLE_BYTES = 108 stay a fixed constant even though EIP-7702 allows larger chain_id and y_parity encodings that break the stated worst-case bound?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (5)
  • 'Intrinsic gas is unchanged' conflicts with 'replaces EIP-7981'. The baseline intrinsic gas includes the EIP-7981 surcharge.
  • execution_gas_used is used with different scope than in EIP-7623.
  • The 108-byte auth tuple 'maximum' assumes a 9-byte chain_id, but EIP-7702 allows chain_id < 2**256.
  • The discussions-to URL references EIP-9999, which is only a citation and has no supplied behavior.
  • The impact analysis uses a mainnet baseline without EIP-7976/7981, while the assessment baseline includes them.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8131 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified3One common rule change (the unified content floor) requires reworking ordinary cases in several distinct families: blob tx gas, validity and balance tests; access-list (EIP-2930/7981) gas expectations; calldata-floor tests that mix fields; and type-4 txs carrying calldata. That fits level 3.
  • eip.md · Test Cases / EIP-4844 with six blob versioned hashes A blob tx with no calldata now has a floor above 21000 (+2048 per hash), so minimal blob txs become floor-bound and txs with gas limit 21000 become invalid.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — bind-rate table Type-3 bind rate is 60%, and type-4 bind rate rises from 0.04% to 20.63%, so ordinary cases in those families change gasUsed.
  • supporting/eip-7981.md · Specification Baseline access-list txs always pay a 1280/2048 surcharge. Under the unified floor, access-list bytes are paid only when the floor binds, which changes ordinary access-list gas expectations.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: How much access-list rework is needed depends on whether the EIP-7981 surcharge stays in intrinsic gas. If it stays, that family is less affected and the score could be 2.
Cross-EIP interactions3The target couples behavior defined by several EIPs into one settlement and validity rule. Coordinated scenarios are needed across type-1/2 access lists, type-3 blob hashes, type-4 authorizations and calldata mixes, including how each interacts with that EIP's own intrinsic cost and refund rules. That fits level 3.
  • eip.md · Specification / Transaction floor One formula couples calldata (EIP-7976), access lists (EIP-2930/7981), authorizations (EIP-7702) and blob hashes (EIP-4844).
  • supporting/eip-7702.md · Gas Costs / Behavior step 7 Per-auth intrinsic cost and refunds for existing authorities interact with the floor's max settlement.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Execution layer validation The blob-tx balance check uses tx.gas; floor-raised gas limits interact with max_total_fee and the separate blob fee.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The access-list interaction depends on the unresolved fate of the EIP-7981 surcharge.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-7702, EIP-4844, EIP-2930, EIP-7981, EIP-7976, EIP-7623, EIP-2028, EIP-1559
New or modified transaction validity mechanismsUnder-specified2The changed validity threshold needs dedicated per-field cases (types 1–4, contract creation, mixed content) at gas_limit = floor−1 and = floor. Baseline validation sequencing and test construction still work. That fits level 2.
  • eip.md · Specification / Charging — "require tx.gas >= max(intrinsic, tx_floor)" The gas-limit validity rule gains new floor terms for auths, blob hashes and access-list bytes.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations / Gas estimation Floor-bound transactions with insufficient gas are rejected at validation.
  • supporting/eip-7981.md · Specification — "Any transaction with a gas limit below tx.gasUsed evaluated with execution_gas_used = 0 is considered invalid" The baseline access-list validity threshold is replaced by the unified floor.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: This could be argued as level 1 (an existing condition with new terms). The new dependence on auth and blob counts motivates level 2.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified2At least two boundary-sensitive rules change: the gas-limit validity threshold max(intrinsic, floor) and the gasUsed crossover max(execution, floor). Floor terms are additive, so each field can largely be tested independently. That fits level 2.
  • eip.md · Specification / Charging — "require tx.gas >= max(intrinsic, tx_floor)" The validity boundary at the gas limit changes with the new floor terms.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "When does the floor bite?" The settlement crossover between execution gas and the floor is boundary-sensitive.
  • supporting/eip-7702.md · Gas Costs Intrinsic gas includes 25000 per auth while the floor uses 6912 per auth, so which side dominates depends on the content mix.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Deciding which of intrinsic or floor dominates depends jointly on calldata zero/non-zero mix, access entries, auths, blob count, creation and refunds. A reviewer could treat that as an elevated matrix (level 3).
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2Access-list transactions have two competing outcomes (surcharge kept in intrinsic vs. removed), differing by 1280/2048 gas per entry, and this must be agreed before expected values can be fixed. The execution_gas_used naming is a secondary localized issue that surrounding text resolves. That fits level 2.
  • eip.md · Specification / Charging — "Intrinsic gas is unchanged." Does not say whether the EIP-7981 access-list data surcharge (part of baseline intrinsic/gasUsed) is removed or kept, even though the abstract says the rule 'replaces' EIP-7981.
  • supporting/eip-7981.md · Reference Implementation — "intrinsic_gas = ... + access_list_data_cost" In the baseline, intrinsic gas includes the surcharge.
  • eip.md · Specification / Charging — "tx.gasUsed = max(execution_gas_used, tx_floor)" execution_gas_used is not redefined here. EIP-7623 defines it as EVM gas excluding intrinsic. Backwards Compatibility implies 'intrinsic plus execution'.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: A later revision or client agreement may resolve this; none is supplied.
EVM Gas rule changes1The transaction gas settlement rule (the floor) changes its terms and rates, and the EIP-7981 always-paid surcharge moves into the floor. No new accounting mechanism is added; the existing max(intrinsic+execution, floor) mechanism is modified. That fits level 1.
  • eip.md · Specification / Transaction floor Redefines the existing floor term to add access-list, authorization and blob-versioned-hash byte counts at 64 gas/byte.
  • eip.md · Specification / Charging — "The `max(intrinsic, floor)` shape of EIP-7623 is preserved" Settlement keeps the existing max(execution, floor) mechanism. Only its inputs change.
  • supporting/eip-7981.md · Specification — "added as a flat surcharge to the gas used calculation" In the baseline, access-list data cost is an always-paid surcharge. EIP-8131 folds it into the floor instead.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: How much of the change is structural depends on whether the EIP-7981 surcharge is removed from intrinsic/gasUsed, which the text leaves ambiguous ('Intrinsic gas is unchanged'). Either way no new mechanism is added.
New test-framework primitives1This is a local extension of an existing primitive (fork-specific intrinsic/floor gas calculation). No new abstraction is needed.
  • eip.md · Specification / Transaction floor The framework's floor-cost calculator must count authorizations and blob hashes and drop or fold the EIP-7981 surcharge.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: No supplied evidence about framework helper structure.
Security risks1The changed invariant is the per-block content bound. It can be checked locally through floor arithmetic and worst-case constructions. The auth-size assumption should be checked against oversized-field authorizations.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Per-auth term is a constant — "maximum RLP size ... 9 B chain_id" Assumes a 108-byte maximum auth tuple.
  • supporting/eip-7702.md · Set code transaction — "assert auth.chain_id < 2**256" chain_id may be up to 256 bits and y_parity up to 2**8, so a tuple can exceed 108 bytes and the claimed bound is not strictly tight.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Whether exceeding the bound via oversized authorization fields matters is a design question, not a testing-breadth one.
Performance risks1The worst-case block-size bound changes, and auth- and blob-hash-heavy blocks are now constrained. Worst-case payload-size benchmarks should be re-validated against the new bound. No new resource coupling is introduced.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations / Block-size bound Claims user content per block is at most block_gas_limit/64 (~0.89 MB at 60M), with envelopes adding ~372 KB.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The change reduces worst-case load, so some reviewers might score 0.
Show 19 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0None added.
  • eip.md · Specification No instructions are added.
Modified opcodes0None modified.
  • eip.md · Specification No instruction semantics change.
Added precompiles0None added.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompiles are added.
Modified precompiles0None modified.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile changes.
Added system contracts0None added.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contract is introduced.
Modified system contracts0None modified.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contract is referenced.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Only transaction-level floor gas is specified. No instruction behavior or access ordering is touched.
Blob gas accounting changes0Blob gas pricing, limits and settlement are unchanged. The new term is regular-gas floor content.
  • eip.md · Specification / Transaction floor — "BLOB_VERSIONED_HASH_BYTES * num_blob_versioned_hashes" Blob versioned hashes are charged in regular gas through the floor, not in blob gas.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Gas accounting Blob gas is an independent gas type with its own pricing, which the target does not change.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No state-write or state-byte accounting is defined.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund mechanism. The existing refund-before-floor interaction is inherited from EIP-7623.
  • eip.md · Specification / Charging Only the floor/max settlement is specified. No refund mechanism is introduced.
New transaction types0No new envelope.
  • eip.md · Specification / Transaction floor — "A field absent from a given transaction type contributes zero" The rule applies to existing transaction types only.
New block / header fields0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No header fields are added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No serialized schema changes.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Content-only, not full RLP The floor is computed from field counts. Transaction schemas are unchanged.
Block syncing changes0Ordinary execution-rule changes do not qualify.
  • eip.md · Specification No block RLP decoding or structural validation change. This is an execution gas rule only.
New fork activation mechanism0No activation-specific state transition.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "Hard fork." Only a rule selection at the fork. No state migration.
Engine API changes0No Engine API change.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API fields or methods are mentioned.
Transition-tool interface changes0Existing t8n inputs and outputs carry the changed gas results.
  • eip.md · Specification / Charging The floor is computed from existing transaction fields. No new inputs or outputs are needed.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Only existing gas values change, and that is counted under PAT.
  • eip.md · Specification No new log, header, receipt field or protocol storage write.
Cryptography0No cryptographic change.
  • eip.md · Specification Only counts of fields are used. No signing, hashing or proof rules change.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@6dac5e7491 EIPS/eip-8131.md committed 2026-10-07 · information cutoff 2026-10-07T22:23:55Z
Current master · File history · blob 8710275f91 · sha256 a961c863da66
Rubric
Checklist revision 3 · ethspecs/pm@fe2f793b03
Evaluator
Opus 5.5 (claude-opus-5-5) at high effort, one tool-less call per EIP · isolation bubblewrap_claude_p_no_tools_v1
Source record
Frozen research record research/tasks/10-opus-v3-reassessment/prospective/outputs/assessments/hegota-2026-10-08/eip-8131.yaml · sha256 f4ce3985091d
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
supporting/eip-1559.md, supporting/eip-2028.md, supporting/eip-2930.md, supporting/eip-4844.md, supporting/eip-7623.md, supporting/eip-7702.md, supporting/eip-7976.md, supporting/eip-7981.md
Compare EIP-8131 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 · not in checklist revision 1
    Changes *where inside an opcode's execution* state is accessed, or where gas is charged relative to that access. Because a state access is recorded in the block-level access list only if execution had enough gas to reach it, this ordering is consensus-critical: moving it changes the BAL at every gas boundary of every affected opcode.
    Score anchors
    0
    No change to where state is accessed, or to where gas is charged relative to a state access, within any opcode.
    1
    A single opcode's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
    2
    Multiple opcodes' ordering changes, or a new state-accessing operation is introduced whose position in the order must be settled.
    3
    The ordering rule changes for a whole class of state-accessing opcodes at once, or what counts as a recordable state access is redefined — requiring existing BAL vectors to be re-derived across opcodes and forks.
    • Distinct from "Modified opcodes", which asks whether an opcode's **result** changed. This row asks about the **path to the result**, which is observable even when the result is identical. An EIP can be 0 on that row and 3 on this one.
    • Score changes **to** the ordering. Do not score the fact that state accesses are observable — they always are.
    • Each boundary must be re-tested against every other dimension that can change the answer (cold/warm, static/non-static, delegated/direct, revert/success), so the case count grows multiplicatively rather than additively. Note this explicitly under Special Considerations.
  • Blob gas accounting changes
    New Blob gas accounting rules which potentially affect pre-existing tests
    Score anchors
    0
    No blob gas accounting changes.
    1
    Existing blob gas accounting mechanism is updated.
    2
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
    3
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
  • State gas accounting changes · not in checklist revision 1
    New state gas accounting rules. State gas is the cost of *writing* state, as opposed to accessing or executing it: `StateGasCosts`, `COST_PER_STATE_BYTE`, the block-level state gas budget, and the spill path into execution gas.
    Score anchors
    0
    No state gas accounting changes.
    1
    An existing state gas cost or `STATE_BYTES_PER_*` rate is adjusted.
    2
    A new state-gas-charging site is introduced, or the block-level state gas budget or reservoir allocation is modified.
    3
    A new state gas charging mechanism is introduced, or the spill interaction between state gas and execution gas is modified, affecting existing gas tests.
    • Harder to test than blob gas: the spill path means state gas cannot be metered independently of execution gas, and some costs (e.g. `NEW_ACCOUNT`) are state-dependent.
  • New EVM gas refund
    New gas-refund mechanism
    Score anchors
    0
    No new gas-refund mechanisms are introduced.
    1
    A new simple gas-refund mechanism is introduced that does not affect either existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    2
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced or a simple mechanism that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    3
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.

Blocks, transactions, and encoding

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

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

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

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

Testing impact

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

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

Risk and validation

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

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

Coordination

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

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