Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8205: Withdrawal credentials preregistration

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, consensus
LLM Completescore 24
Human Available in open PRscore 5 · Checklist revision 1· ethspecs/pm #73
LLM · Checklist revision 22026-08-26 · Original snapshot · 24Human · Checklist revision 1Available in open PR · 5

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

Scope at the cutoff. Execution-layer-only assessment of the draft EIP-8205 surface: one new stateful EIP-7685 request predeploy, ordinary-call submission and fee-getter paths, a mandatory end-of-block system call, fixed-width request production, fork activation, and the resulting block-validity, performance, security, and cross-EIP testing effects. Consensus-layer preregistration storage, signature verification, expiry, and deposit enforcement are boundary context only and are not independently scored.

24HighHigh
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 11 criteria affected
Plausible range
20–31 (Medium–High)
Snapshot
2026-08-25 · EIP revision ac450a4ab2 (2026-08-25)
Score bands · Checklist revision 2
  • Low <12
  • Medium 12–22
  • High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

  1. Cross-EIP interactions5
  2. Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3
  3. New fork activation mechanism3
  4. Edge/boundary conditions3

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 draft's execution pseudocode is substantial, but the predeploy address, request-type allocation, runtime bytecode, deterministic deployment transaction and pre-state, test vectors, and reference implementation are absent. These gaps prevent exact cross-client baselining and make interface, regression-test, performance, and security effort materially uncertain.

Plausible total

20–31
recorded score 24 · plausible tiers Medium, High

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)
  • What final predeploy address and EIP-7685 request-type byte are allocated, and therefore where does this type sort relative to every active request type?
  • What exact runtime bytecode, deployment transaction, deployment timing, and inhibitor-bearing pre-state implement the pseudocode at activation?
  • Does the existing generic transition-tool and execution-request interface carry the new type without fields or primitives not described in the draft?
  • What executable vectors baseline dispatch, fee arithmetic, queue boundaries, activation, system-call failure, and coexistence with other request types?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • Request ordering is consensus-critical under EIP-7685, but EIP-8205 leaves its request-type value TBD.
  • Pseudocode defines intended contract behavior, while the consensus-critical runtime bytecode and deterministic deployment transaction remain TBD.
  • The proposal requires a first-call inhibitor reset at FORK_BLOCK but does not provide the deployment artifact that establishes the required pre-fork code and storage.
  • Tests and reference implementation are both TBD, so no package evidence shows that all execution edge cases or multi-request-type compositions are baselined.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8205 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specifiedExceptional5Coordinated cases are needed for EIP-7685 encoding/order/commitment; EIP-1559 gas-burn exclusion and fee-derived behavior; coexistence with EIP-7002 and EIP-7251 request predeploys; EIP-6110 deposit request carriage; EIP-7732's delayed execution-request context; EIP-4788 proof consumption; EIP-7843 deadline checks; and EIP-8282 request-type/builder independence. That is nine identified interactions: base score 3, plus 2 for six additional EIPs beyond the first three. Consensus-only state-transition costs are excluded, but the execution request bus and application-facing proof/deadline boundaries remain coordinated execution-layer test axes.

Exceptional score: This is the rubric's intentionally uncapped formula, not a discretionary exceptional score: nine interacting EIPs yield 3 + floor((9 - 3) / 3) = 5.

  • eip.md · Abstract; Specification; Rationale; Security Considerations The draft explicitly connects its fee, system-call, request-bus, deposit, payload-timing, proof/deadline, and builder-separation behavior to EIPs 1559, 4788, 6110, 7002, 7251, 7685, 7732, 7843, and 8282.
  • supporting/eip-7685.md · Specification > Execution Layer The shared request bus fixes cross-type ordering and requests_hash commitment rules for all request producers.
  • supporting/eip-7002.md · Specification > Execution layer > Withdrawal Request Contract An existing fee-metered request predeploy shares the block request bus and mandatory post-block system-call pattern.
  • supporting/eip-7251.md · Specification > Execution layer > Consolidation request contract A second existing predeploy shares the request bus, queue, fee, and system call pattern.
  • supporting/eip-8282.md · Specification > Request queue and system call; Changes to EIP-7732 Builder request types coexist on EIP-7685 and are specified as independent from validator deposit routing.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: EIPs 4788 and 7843 are exercised by the specified staking-protocol workflow rather than by the preregistration predeploy itself, while much of the 6110, 7732, and 8282 semantic interaction lies across the consensus boundary.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-1559, EIP-4788, EIP-6110, EIP-7002, EIP-7251, EIP-7685, EIP-7732, EIP-7843, EIP-8282
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)Under-specified3The proposal introduces a new fixed-width encoding at block/request-interface level. This binary rubric row assigns 3 whenever such an encoding change is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration request operation A new block request encoding is defined as a type byte plus the flat concatenation of fixed 176-byte pubkey, credentials, and signature records.
  • supporting/eip-7685.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Requests Each proposal-specific request_data encoding is carried inside the block's typed request object and committed by requests_hash.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The request-type value is TBD, but the record layout and block-interface placement are explicit.
New fork activation mechanismUnder-specified3Activation is not merely awareness of a new variable: the first mandatory system call changes predeploy storage from the inhibitor state to the enabled state. The rubric's binary state-modification anchor therefore scores 3.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract > System Call Starting at FORK_BLOCK, every block performs the system call; the first call changes EXCESS_INHIBITOR to zero and resets per-block state.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract > Fee calculation Requests revert while the inhibitor remains active before activation.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The deterministic deployment transaction and exact pre-fork allocation are TBD, creating uncertainty about how the required inhibitor pre-state is materialized, not about the specified activation write.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3Several independent boundary-prone mechanisms combine: dispatch and value matrices, exact fee/excess arithmetic, queue empty/partial/capped states, activation/inhibitor transitions, and fatal system-call outcomes. Fee growth and persistent queue indices require an elevated set of boundary cases.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract Dispatch depends on system versus non-system caller, calldata lengths 0, 176, or other, attached value, fee sufficiency, and empty/non-empty system calldata.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract > System Call Queue draining is capped at four, head/tail reset when empty, excess is updated across the target boundary, and the inhibitor has activation, disable, and re-enable behavior.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > System call failure A failed system call makes the block invalid.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Exact bytecode-level edge results remain unbaselineable until the runtime bytecode is supplied.
Added system contractsUnder-specified2Exactly one new system contract is introduced, and it is both stateful and the source of a new consensus-layer request action, matching score 2.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract One new contract maintains fee, count, head, tail, and queue storage and emits/dequeues preregistration requests.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility > Execution layer The execution layer deploys a new system contract and introduces a new EIP-7685 request type.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Address, bytecode, and deployment transaction are TBD, but the contract's stateful and request-triggering character is explicit.
Security risksUnder-specified2The execution mechanism touches a limited set of critical components: a value-holding stateful queue, economic rate limiting, EIP-7685 block requests, and fatal block-validation paths. These require targeted review and fuzzing, but the package does not show a substantial alteration of several existing execution security invariants.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > DoS and state growth Fee lag permits all same-block submissions to pay the old fee, while persistent spam grows request state and raises subsequent fees.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > System call failure Any system-call failure makes the block invalid.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > Empty code failure Missing predeploy code makes the block invalid.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > Fee overpayment Excess payment is retained rather than refunded.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Missing bytecode and deployment artifacts prevent code-level review, and the execution-only scope excludes the larger consensus-layer deposit-enforcement security analysis.
Performance risksUnder-specified2Individual paths are benchmarkable, but end-to-end cost depends on ordinary transaction submissions, persistent storage, queue backlog, fee-loop state, and mandatory post-block execution. The drain cap limits the impact, fitting a limited interaction with existing block-performance behavior.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract > System Call Every block executes a 30,000,000-gas-budget system call that reads and writes queue state and drains up to four 176-byte records.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > DoS and state growth Submissions can create sustained queue/state load; the fee reacts only in the following block and serves as an economic rate limiter.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Runtime bytecode is TBD, so exact gas, worst-case fake-exponential iteration, and system-call headroom cannot be measured from the package.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2Exact type allocation, address, executable code, and deployment/pre-state are localized but consensus-critical details that clients need before block and fork tests can be baselined. The behavior is newly introduced rather than a previously unobservable existing behavior, so score 3 is not reached.
  • eip.md · Specification > Configuration > Execution layer PREREGISTRATION_REQUEST_PREDEPLOY_ADDRESS and PREREGISTRATION_REQUEST_TYPE are TBD.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract > Bytecode Runtime bytecode is TBD.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract > Deployment The deterministic deployment transaction is TBD.
  • eip.md · Test Cases; Reference Implementation Both test vectors and the reference implementation are TBD.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The pseudocode resolves most functional cases, but the missing artifacts are material and cannot be repaired from memory under the snapshot rules.
EVM Gas rule changes1The proposal extends the established system-call gas-accounting pattern to one additional mandatory call. This updates where that existing mechanism applies, without changing opcode gas schedules or ordinary transaction gas accounting.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract > System Call The mandatory call has a dedicated 30,000,000 gas limit; assigned and consumed gas are excluded from block-gas checks, and EIP-1559 burn semantics do not apply.
  • supporting/eip-7002.md · Specification > Execution layer > Withdrawal Request Contract > System Call The same dedicated, block-gas-excluded system-call accounting already exists for withdrawal requests.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Runtime bytecode is TBD, but the consensus-critical gas treatment of the system call is explicit.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified1Existing post-fork tests around EIP-7685 request construction, request ordering, block validation, and fork allocations need a localized update. Empty request data remains commitment-neutral, so the evidence does not show broad reworking of unrelated execution tests.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility A new system contract and EIP-7685 request type make execution-layer block structure and validation backward-incompatible at the fork.
  • supporting/eip-7685.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Block Header Block requests are ordered by request type, hashed, and committed through requests_hash; empty request data is excluded.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The TBD address, type allocation, bytecode, and deployment prevent fixing the exact subset of existing fork and request tests that changes.
Show 18 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is introduced by this proposal.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer The execution-layer feature is a contract and request type; no opcode is added.
  • eip.md · Rationale > Deposit process for staking protocols SLOTNUM is consumed from EIP-7843 by an application flow rather than added by EIP-8205.
Uncertainty: No material uncertainty for this anchor.
Modified opcodes0The system-contract mechanism uses existing EVM operations unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer No pre-existing opcode behavior or result is modified.
Uncertainty: No material uncertainty for this anchor.
Added precompiles0No precompile is added.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer A stateful predeploy contract, not a precompile, is introduced.
Uncertainty: No material uncertainty for this anchor.
Modified precompiles0No existing precompile is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer The proposal specifies no change to precompile logic or gas schedules.
Uncertainty: No material uncertainty for this anchor.
Modified system contracts0No pre-existing system-contract code or state is changed, and the package specifies independent behavior rather than an indirect behavioral change to another predeploy.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility > Execution layer The execution change adds a new contract rather than modifying one.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > Builder deposits Builder requests use an independent request type and registry and are not consumed or authorized by preregistration.
Uncertainty: Coexistence on EIP-7685 is scored under cross-EIP interactions, not as a modification of another system contract.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0Contract SLOAD/SSTORE activity does not change where state is accessed inside an opcode, and the proposal adds or modifies no opcode ordering rule.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract The execution change is a contract and post-block call; it does not alter any opcode's internal state-access or gas-charge sequence.
Uncertainty: The missing contract bytecode affects implementation completeness, not the specified absence of opcode-internal ordering changes.
Blob gas accounting changes0The request fee is an independent contract fee; no blob-gas accounting mechanism is introduced or modified.
  • eip.md · Specification > Configuration > Execution layer Configuration defines preregistration request fees and queue parameters, with no blob-gas variable or rule.
Uncertainty: No blob-gas behavior is present in the sealed proposal.
State gas accounting changes0Writing contract storage is not itself a change to the rubric's separate state-gas accounting mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract > Add Preregistration Request Queue writes use ordinary SSTORE pseudocode and define no StateGasCosts, state-byte rate, state-gas budget, reservoir, or spill rule.
Uncertainty: Bytecode is missing, but the draft specifies no state-gas charging site or budget interaction.
New EVM gas refund0The proposal neither creates nor changes an EVM gas refund; its explicit no-refund rule concerns excess ETH request fees, not gas accounting.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > Fee overpayment The system contract does not refund excess request-fee payment.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract No EVM gas-refund mechanism is specified on any contract path.
Uncertainty: No material uncertainty for this anchor.
New transaction types0The new request type does not introduce a transaction envelope type.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract > Add Preregistration Request Preregistrations are submitted by ordinary calls to a contract.
  • supporting/eip-7685.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Requests An EIP-7685 request type is a block request object, not a transaction type.
Uncertainty: No material uncertainty for this anchor.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0The proposal adds contract-level success and revert conditions but leaves the validity rules and intrinsic gas of all transaction types unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract Invalid input lengths, insufficient fees, and value-bearing getters revert through contract execution; no transaction validity or intrinsic-gas rule changes.
Uncertainty: No transaction-level validity change is specified.
New block / header fields0EIP-8205 adds data under an existing request commitment and does not add a new block or header field of its own.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility > Execution layer The execution additions are a system contract and EIP-7685 request type.
  • supporting/eip-7685.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Block Header EIP-7685 already supplies the requests_hash header commitment.
Uncertainty: The TBD request-type allocation does not create a header field.
Block syncing changes0Block validation changes, but the rubric specifically scores new block RLP validation mechanisms requiring sync tests; the proposal introduces none.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility > Execution layer The execution change is a new system contract and EIP-7685 request type, not a new block RLP field or RLP validation rule.
  • supporting/eip-7685.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Requests Request payloads are opaque bytes within the existing request bus.
Uncertainty: Request replay during sync still needs ordinary block-validation coverage, but it does not meet this row's RLP-specific anchor.
Engine API changes0No new Engine API field or endpoint is specified for preregistration; its bytes use the existing execution-request carriage.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration request operation The draft defines an EIP-7685 request object and no Engine API field, endpoint, or communication mechanism.
  • supporting/eip-7732.md · Engine API EIP-7732 states that no Engine API changes are needed.
Uncertainty: The draft does not explain transition-tool or Engine serialization in detail, but absence of a specified new API surface limits this score to zero.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified0The sealed text requires a new request value and state transition, but it identifies no new transition-tool field or interface mechanism beyond the existing generic EIP-7685 request list.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration request operation The new result is represented as an ordinary EIP-7685 request_type plus opaque request_data.
  • supporting/eip-7685.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Requests The existing generic request object already carries a type byte and opaque byte array for proposal-specific formats.
Uncertainty: Transition-tool details are not specified, so an implementation could need interface work; the package does not establish a scoreable new field or mechanism.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Tests not exercising preregistration do not gain a new universally required assertion: an empty result leaves the existing request commitment stable.
  • supporting/eip-7685.md · Rationale > Removing empty requests in commitment Empty request elements are excluded so the empty requests hash is stable across forks.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract > System Call Only dequeued preregistration records must newly appear in the existing EIP-7685 requests list.
Uncertainty: Launcher or framework conventions for exposing empty per-type results are not specified, but no protocol-level new assertion is shown for every test.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified0Nothing in the package requires a new expectation type, modifier, or framework-level helper rather than ordinary execution and block tests.
  • eip.md · Test Cases Test vectors are TBD and no new framework abstraction is proposed.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution layer > Preregistration Request Contract The specified behaviors are contract calls, storage changes, logs, reverts, returned bytes, and block validity outcomes.
Uncertainty: Tests and the reference implementation are TBD, so later test design could reveal a primitive need that is not evidenced in this snapshot.
Cryptography0Under the execution-layer-only scope, no cryptographic mechanism is added or modified. Consensus-layer BLS verification is boundary context and is not scored here.
  • eip.md · Rationale > BLS verification on CL only BLS verification is deliberately performed only by the consensus layer; the execution system contract is only a rate-limited queue.
Uncertainty: No execution-layer cryptographic operation is specified.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-8205.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob 6c78772098 · sha256 c6259cbcdd48
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-8205.yaml · sha256 6f296d32d276
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-1559.md, supporting/eip-4788.md, supporting/eip-6110.md, supporting/eip-7002.md, supporting/eip-7251.md, supporting/eip-7685.md, supporting/eip-7732.md, supporting/eip-7843.md, supporting/eip-8282.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded

5LowLow
Evaluator
HumanChecklist v1
Confidence
Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published
2026-05-29
Score bands · Checklist revision 1
  • Low <10
  • Medium 10–19
  • High ≥20

24 criteria scored 0–3 (4 in exceptional cases; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped); nominal maximum 72.

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

  1. New fork activation mechanism3
  2. Added system contracts2

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8205 Hegotá: Human criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreNotes
New fork activation mechanism3No rationale recorded.—
Added system contracts2No rationale recorded.—
Show 22 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 1)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreNotes
Added opcodes0No rationale recorded.—
Modified opcodes0No rationale recorded.—
Added precompiles0No rationale recorded.—
Modified precompiles0No rationale recorded.—
Modified system contracts0No rationale recorded.—
EVM Gas rule changes0No rationale recorded.—
Blob gas accounting changes0No rationale recorded.—
New EVM gas refund0No rationale recorded.—
New transaction types0No rationale recorded.—
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0No rationale recorded.—
New block / header fields0No rationale recorded.—
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No rationale recorded.—
Block syncing changes0No rationale recorded.—
Engine API changes0No rationale recorded.—
Engine API encoding changes0No rationale recorded.—
Transition-tool interface changes0No rationale recorded.—
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests0No rationale recorded.—
Security risks0No rationale recorded.—
Performance risks0No rationale recorded.—
Edge/boundary conditions0No rationale recorded.—
Cryptography0No rationale recorded.—
Cross-EIP interactions0No rationale recorded.—
Assessment provenance
Rubric
Checklist revision 1 · ethspecs/pm@d936bcb349
Evaluator
STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record
Open pull request #73: Add complexity assessments · checklist at 7bdc9e9829 · updated 2026-05-29
blob 0000ef39c9 · sha256 fcab9b8af1fa
Research record
research/tasks/09-hegota-human-assessment-snapshot/outputs/assessments/eip-8205.yaml · sha256 5c71d0165323
Compare EIP-8205 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.