Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8148: Custom sweep threshold for validators

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: PFILayers: execution, consensus
LLM Completescore 19
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: PFI

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-8148 adds an EIP-7685 execution-layer request type, SET_SWEEP_THRESHOLD_REQUEST_TYPE = 0x05. It is backed by a new stateful predeploy contract at an address still marked TBD. The contract follows the EIP-7002 pattern: a 56-byte add path (pubkey plus a big-endian uint64 threshold), a fee getter with an exponential fee and an inhibitor, and an end-of-block SYSTEM_ADDRESS call. That call dequeues up to 16 requests, updates the excess, resets the count and returns concatenated 76-byte SSZ ValidatorSetSweepThresholdRequest records for the requests list and requests_hash. One difference from EIP-7002: a system call with non-empty calldata disables the queue by setting the inhibitor. The rest of the feature is consensus-layer work: per-validator sweep thresholds, credential-encoded initial thresholds, effective-balance caps and changes to sweep withdrawals.

19MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 8 criteria affected
Plausible range
14–25 (Medium–High)
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. Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3
  2. Added system contracts2
  3. New invariant on pre-existing tests2
  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 predeploy address, deployment transaction and sender are TBD, so the deployed initial storage (presumably excess = EXCESS_INHIBITOR) is only implied. The pseudocode omits the little-endian conversion of the threshold that the note and the bytecode imply. The inhibitor handling differs slightly between pseudocode and bytecode, though not observably. Engine API changes and the order of the new system call relative to other request system calls are not stated.

Plausible total

14–25
recorded score 19 · plausible tiers Medium, High

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)
  • What are the predeploy address and the deployment transaction, and does deployment initialise slot 0 to EXCESS_INHIBITOR?
  • Is the threshold output by the contract little-endian, as the note and bytecode imply, or does the pseudocode, which has no conversion, govern?
  • Does the Engine API need a new method version, or new validation of request types, to accept type 0x05?
  • In what order does the new end-of-block system call run relative to the EIP-7002 and EIP-7251 system calls?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (5)
  • The add-path pseudocode stores `validator_pubkey[32:48] ++ threshold` without uint64_to_little_endian, unlike EIP-7002. The dequeue pseudocode reads `[16:24]` directly. The note and the bytecode's mstore8 byte reversal indicate little-endian output.
  • When the inhibitor is set, the bytecode forces new_excess to 0 regardless of count, while the pseudocode resets previous_excess to 0 and then applies the count. These match only because adds revert while the inhibitor is active.
  • The queue-disable path (system call with non-empty calldata) is unreachable under this EIP but present in the bytecode. Tests may need to confirm that only SYSTEM_ADDRESS can reach it.
  • Request type 0x05 is assigned without the supplied documents defining types 0x03 and 0x04 in the baseline.
  • The Deployment section is entirely TBD.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8148 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3A new execution-request payload schema within the existing EIP-7685 scheme meets level 3.
  • eip.md · System Call — "returns an opaque byte array of concatenated SSZ-serialized dequeued requests" Defines a new request payload schema for type 0x05: Bytes20 source_address, Bytes48 pubkey and a little-endian uint64 threshold (76 bytes each).
  • supporting/eip-7685.md · Requests — "requests = request_type ++ request_data" The new payload sits inside the existing request-type scheme.
Confidence: High
Added system contracts2Exactly one contract is introduced, and it is both stateful and triggers a system action.
  • eip.md · Constants — `SET_SWEEP_THRESHOLD_REQUEST_PREDEPLOY_ADDRESS` `TBD` One new protocol-designated contract is introduced; its address is still TBD.
  • eip.md · Add Set Sweep Threshold Request The contract is stateful (queue, count, excess) and produces EIP-7685 execution requests, which is a system action.
Confidence: High
New invariant on pre-existing testsUnder-specified2In the target fork, every block-based test now produces a new protocol-mandated storage write, and its post-state and requests output must reflect it. This is universal within the fork, but pre-fork vectors do not need re-deriving, so it is level 2.
  • eip.md · System Call — "At the end of processing any execution block starting from the `FORK_BLOCK`" Every block in the target fork runs a new system call that writes contract storage: the excess update (including clearing the inhibitor on the first call) and the count reset.
  • eip.md · Constants — `EXCESS_INHIBITOR` "Excess value used to compute the fee before the first system call" The first post-fork system call changes the excess slot, which changes post-state.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: If the predeploy is handled purely by fork pre-allocation and filled state roots, this could be seen as level 1.
Edge/boundary conditions2Several independent boundary-sensitive mechanisms are introduced: input length, fee and inhibitor, per-block dequeue maximum and queue reset, excess target, and the fee getter rejecting value. None needs an elevated, non-separable matrix beyond multi-block queue and fee sequences.
  • eip.md · Add Set Sweep Threshold Request — "exactly `56` bytes" Calldata length decides the code path: 56 bytes adds a request, 0 bytes returns the fee, anything else reverts.
  • eip.md · Fee calculation — "msg.value >= fee" The fee threshold and inhibitor revert are boundaries.
  • eip.md · dequeue_set_sweep_threshold_requests — "min(num_in_queue, MAX_SET_SWEEP_THRESHOLD_REQUESTS_PER_BLOCK)" There are boundaries at 16 dequeued requests per block and at queue-pointer reset when the queue empties.
  • eip.md · update_excess_set_sweep_threshold_requests There are boundaries at the target of 2 requests per block, the inhibitor reset, and non-empty system calldata.
Confidence: Medium
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified2Coordinated cases are needed for blocks combining sweep-threshold requests with withdrawal (EIP-7002) and consolidation (EIP-7251) requests, checking EIP-7685 type ordering and requests_hash composition. The new system call runs alongside the existing request system calls. The EIP-7825 and EIP-1559 interactions only need local checks. This fits coordinated cases without restructuring shared vectors.
  • supporting/eip-7685.md · Block Header — "`requests` items must be ordered by `request_type` ascending" Type 0x05 must be combined and ordered with the other request types in requests_hash.
  • eip.md · System Call — "not subject to the transaction limit cap introduced in [EIP-7825]" Explicitly exempts the system call from the EIP-7825 cap.
  • eip.md · System Call — "does not follow [EIP-1559] fee burn semantics" The system call does not pay a base fee and transfers no value.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Overview The mechanism mirrors the EIP-7002 queue and fee design, and the feature targets EIP-7251 0x02 validators.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Multi-type request blocks could be read as coupling several EIPs at once, which would give level 3.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-7685, EIP-7002, EIP-7251, EIP-7825, EIP-1559
Block syncing changesUnder-specified1Block import validation of requests_hash must include the new type, and blocks are invalid when the new contract is missing or fails. These follow the inherited pattern and are mostly execution-derived rather than structural RLP rules, so level 1 is the best fit.
  • eip.md · System Call — "If the call to the contract fails or returns an error, the block **MUST** be invalidated" These are new block-invalidity conditions tied to the new predeploy.
  • supporting/eip-7685.md · Block Header The requests_hash header validation now includes the new request type.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: Treating the state-dependent invalidation rules as complex structural checks would give 2. Treating them as ordinary execution rules would give 0.
Engine API changesUnder-specified1The executionRequests content exchanged over the Engine API gains a new allowed type, a semantic change to one field. The text specifies no endpoint change.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility / Execution Layer Requests — "This changes `ExecutionRequests`" The set of request types carried between EL and CL changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API method or version change is specified.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: The Engine API specification is not supplied. A new method version or new request-type validation rules could raise this to 2. If requests are fully opaque and generic, it could be 0.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified1The existing requests/requests_hash output of the state-transition tool gains a new type, so one field's semantics change. No new exchange mechanism is required.
  • eip.md · Set sweep threshold request — "request_type = SET_SWEEP_THRESHOLD_REQUEST_TYPE" The requests output of block processing gains a new request type entry.
  • supporting/eip-7685.md · Block Header The requests list and requests_hash commitment are existing outputs.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: No transition-tool documentation is supplied. If the requests output is fully generic, this may be 0.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified1Baseline requests_hash values are unchanged when no sweep requests occur, so baseline vectors need little rework. The required predeploy pre-state can be handled through fork pre-allocation. Rework is localized: request-list and type-ordering cases, plus any baseline case that relies on 0x05 being an unused type or on an exact post-state allocation.
  • eip.md · System Call — "If there is no code at `SET_SWEEP_THRESHOLD_REQUEST_PREDEPLOY_ADDRESS`, the corresponding block **MUST** be marked invalid" Every target-fork block requires the new contract in pre-state. Without it, baseline vectors become invalid blocks.
  • supporting/eip-7685.md · Block Header — "Items with empty `request_data` are excluded" requests_hash is unchanged for blocks without the new requests, so most baseline request-hash expectations remain valid.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The packet does not say whether baseline Engine API or request tests treat type 0x05 as unknown or invalid. Whether adding the predeploy to genesis counts as rework depends on the framework.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified1The framework needs a local extension: a new request-type model and helper alongside the existing withdrawal and consolidation request primitives. No new shared abstraction is needed.
  • eip.md · System Call — `class ValidatorSetSweepThresholdRequest(Container)` A new request record type (source_address, validator_pubkey, threshold) must be modelled to build expected requests.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Expected-request generation for the queue and fee may need a generic system-contract abstraction if one does not already exist. This is not evidenced either way.
Security risks1The new security conditions can be checked locally: fee-based rate limiting, the system-only dequeue and disable paths, recording msg.sender as source_address, and invalidation on missing code or a failed call. Validating source_address against credentials is CL work.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations Refers to EIP-7002 for fee overpayment, system call failure and empty-code failure.
  • eip.md · Disabling the queue — "A system call with non-empty calldata stores `EXCESS_INHIBITOR`" A new privileged path that only SYSTEM_ADDRESS can reach. It must be checked that ordinary callers cannot trigger it.
Confidence: Medium
Performance risks1An extra bounded end-of-block system call (at most 16 dequeues, 3 slots each) can be covered by component benchmarks. Baseline end-to-end assumptions do not change.
  • eip.md · System Call — "dedicated gas limit of `30_000_000`" Adds one more per-block system call that is outside block gas accounting.
  • eip.md · Constants — `MAX_SET_SWEEP_THRESHOLD_REQUESTS_PER_BLOCK` `16` Dequeue work per block is bounded.
Confidence: Medium
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified1These are localized omissions: TBD address and deployment, endianness wording, and small pseudocode/bytecode differences. The note and bytecode support one intended outcome for each. The order of the new end-of-block system call relative to the others is not stated, but appears unobservable in state.
  • eip.md · Constants / Deployment — `TBD` The predeploy address, deployment transaction and sender are not specified. That leaves the initial storage, such as an inhibitor set at deployment, implicit.
  • eip.md · Set sweep threshold request — "`threshold` is returned by the contract little-endian" The pseudocode stores and reads the threshold without an explicit endianness conversion. The note and the bytecode's byte reversal support little-endian output.
  • eip.md · update_excess_set_sweep_threshold_requests vs Bytecode When the inhibitor is set, the bytecode forces new_excess to 0 regardless of count. The pseudocode instead treats previous_excess as 0. The two match only because adds revert while the inhibitor is active.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The TBD address and deployment block fixing concrete expected results. If treated as unresolved outcomes, the score could be 2.
Show 15 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No new instruction.
  • eip.md · Bytecode The bytecode uses only existing instructions.
Modified opcodes0No instruction semantics or availability change.
  • eip.md · Specification No instruction semantics are changed.
Added precompiles0No new precompile.
  • eip.md · Specification Only an EVM system contract is introduced; there is no precompile.
Modified precompiles0No precompile changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile is referenced or changed.
Modified system contracts0No existing system contract's rules, code, storage or surrounding protocol behaviour is changed.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Overview The EIP reuses the EIP-7002 design for a separate contract and does not alter the withdrawal or consolidation contracts.
  • supporting/eip-7002.md · Bytecode The existing withdrawal contract code is unchanged.
Uncertainty: The order of the new end-of-block system call relative to existing ones is not stated, but it does not alter those contracts.
EVM Gas rule changes0No execution-gas charging or metering rule changes. The request fee is an ordinary contract fee paid in value, not a gas accounting mechanism. The system-call gas rules are inherited.
  • eip.md · System Call — "dedicated gas limit of `30_000_000`" The system call reuses the inherited system-call gas treatment: a dedicated limit, excluded from block gas, and not subject to the EIP-7825 cap.
  • supporting/eip-7002.md · System Call EIP-7002 already defines the same dedicated gas and block-gas exclusion rules for request system calls.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No instruction's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes, and no new state-accessing operation is introduced.
  • eip.md · Set sweep threshold request contract The new behaviour is entirely contract bytecode using existing SLOAD/SSTORE/LOG0; no opcode's ordering is changed.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob-gas accounting changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No blob-related rules are mentioned.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting mechanism or parameter is changed. The contract only uses existing state-writing operations.
  • eip.md · Add Set Sweep Threshold Request The queue uses ordinary SSTOREs under the unchanged pricing.
New EVM gas refund0No new protocol refund mechanism.
  • eip.md · Fee calculation Fees are not refunded and no gas refund rule is introduced.
  • supporting/eip-7002.md · Fee Overpayment — "Overpaid fees are not returned" The referenced pattern confirms there is no refund of overpayment.
New transaction types0No new EIP-2718 transaction type.
  • eip.md · Set sweep threshold request Requests are made by ordinary contract calls. The new type is an execution-request type, not a transaction envelope.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0No consensus transaction-validity or intrinsic-gas rule changes.
  • eip.md · Add Set Sweep Threshold Request — "require(msg.value >= fee" An insufficient fee causes an application-level revert, not transaction invalidity.
New block / header fields0An additional request type under the existing requests_hash is not a new header field.
  • supporting/eip-7685.md · Block Header — `requests_hash` The requests commitment already exists.
  • eip.md · Set sweep threshold request Adds a request type under the existing commitment.
New fork activation mechanism0No protocol-mandated activation-time state migration or code installation is specified. The inhibitor clearing is contract-internal logic inside the recurring call.
  • eip.md · Deployment — "deployed like any other smart contract" The contract is installed by an ordinary deployment transaction (details TBD), not by protocol-mandated installation.
  • eip.md · update_excess_set_sweep_threshold_requests — "if previous_excess == EXCESS_INHIBITOR" The inhibitor is cleared by the contract's own logic in the recurring system call.
Uncertainty: The deployment transaction and address are TBD. If they were later replaced by protocol-mandated installation, this would become level 3.
Cryptography0No cryptographic mechanism is added or changed on the EL.
  • supporting/eip-7685.md · Block Header — "sha256 hash" The requests commitment reuses the unchanged sha256 rule.
  • eip.md · Set sweep threshold request validator_pubkey is carried as opaque bytes and is not verified by the EL.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@6dac5e7491 EIPS/eip-8148.md committed 2026-10-07 · information cutoff 2026-10-07T22:23:55Z
Current master · File history · blob df9e6af5ac · sha256 c16b9449027b
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-8148.yaml · sha256 bd7a7b5ae17a
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
supporting/eip-1559.md, supporting/eip-7002.md, supporting/eip-7251.md, supporting/eip-7685.md, supporting/eip-7825.md
Compare EIP-8148 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.