Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8253: Bump nonce of zero-nonce storage accounts

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 11
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-8253 adds a one-time irregular state transition at the start of the Hegotá fork block. Before any pre-execution system contract call or transaction, it sets the nonce to 1 for a fixed list of 28 Mainnet accounts that have empty code, zero nonce and non-empty storage. Balance, code hash and storage root stay the same, and the transition produces no transaction, receipt or log and uses no gas. Because the bumped accounts now fail EIP-684's nonce == 0 precondition, later CREATE/CREATE2 calls to these addresses fail; the EIP offers this as an alternative to EIP-7610's runtime storage check. When EIP-7928 is active, each targeted account must appear in the block access list (BAL) with a single NonceChange [0, 1] and no other changes.

11LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 5 criteria affected
Plausible range
9–16 (Low–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. New fork activation mechanism3
  2. Cross-EIP interactions2
  3. Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2
  4. Transition-tool interface changes1

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 sets nonces unconditionally from a list but does not define behavior when a listed account is absent or does not match the predicate. It also leaves which list applies on non-Mainnet or test chains permissive ('can apply', 'MAY ignore'). This affects how fixtures exercise the transition and whether fork-transition tests see extra accounts.

Plausible total

9–16
recorded score 11 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)
  • If a listed address does not exist in state at the fork block, is an account with nonce 1 created, or is the entry skipped?
  • If a listed account has code or a non-zero nonce on a given chain, is its nonce still set to 1?
  • Which account list must clients apply on test networks and other non-Mainnet chains (including chain ID 1 test fixtures), and how is it configured?
  • If a fork-block transaction also accesses a targeted account, how should the BAL entry be described? The spec says the other lists are 'empty', but a later transaction could add, e.g., storage_reads.
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • The referenced assets (targeted-accounts.json, methodology.md, zero-nonce-matches.jsonl) are not supplied, so list contents and how the list was constructed cannot be verified.
  • EIP-161/EIP-7523 define 'empty' without regard to storage. A test pre-state with zero balance for A would be an invalid post-merge empty account, so Test Case 1's balance b must be non-zero.
  • Test Case 2 says that without this EIP, CREATE to A 'would succeed (under EIP-684 alone)'. Whether EIP-7610 is in the Amsterdam baseline is not established by the supplied documents.
  • EIP-7928 defines BAL index 0 for pre-execution system contract calls. The target extends index 0 to an irregular transition that is not a system call.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8253 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
New fork activation mechanism3A one-time activation-specific migration of pre-fork state: setting nonces for listed accounts at the fork block. Level 3.
  • eip.md · State transition — "At the start of the fork block ... The nonce of A MUST be set to 1" This is a one-time irregular mutation of persistent account state at activation.
  • eip.md · Reference Implementation — apply_irregular_state_transition The transition is separate from ordinary post-fork processing.
Confidence: High
Cross-EIP interactions2Coordinated cases are needed with EIP-684 (creation outcome across the fork boundary) and EIP-7928 (fork-block BAL index-0 NonceChange, merged with system-call entries and later transaction accesses). Other EIPs need only local compatibility checks. Level 2.
  • eip.md · Test Cases — "CREATE reverts" CREATE/CREATE2 to A must fail under EIP-684 after the fork and succeed before it; tested in the fork block.
  • eip.md · Interaction with EIP-7928 The BAL must encode a NonceChange at index 0, ordered before system calls, and must reproduce the state root.
  • supporting/eip-7928.md · BlockAccessIndex Assignment Index 0 is otherwise defined for pre-execution system calls, so the transition's entries share that index with them.
  • supporting/eip-7523.md · Specification — empty account definition An account with zero balance, zero nonce and no code is 'empty' whatever its storage, so test pre-states must avoid zero balance.
Confidence: Medium
Interacting EIPs: EIP-684, EIP-7928, EIP-7610, EIP-161, EIP-7523, EIP-2935, EIP-4788, EIP-7002, EIP-7251
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2There are localized competing outcomes: whether nonexistent listed accounts are created with nonce 1, and which list (Mainnet, generated, or empty) clients apply on non-Mainnet or test chains. Both must be agreed before expected results can be fixed. Level 2.
  • eip.md · State transition / Reference Implementation — state.set_nonce(entry.address, 1) The nonce is set unconditionally. The spec does not say what happens if a listed account does not exist, or no longer matches the predicate (e.g., in a test or non-Mainnet state): create it, or skip it.
  • eip.md · Application to non-Mainnet chains — "Chains forked from Mainnet ... can apply the same list ... MAY ignore" Which list applies to a given chain (including test chains with chain ID 1) is permissive and not consensus-fixed, so fixture expectations can differ between clients.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The referenced assets (targeted-accounts.json, methodology.md) are not supplied and might clarify list handling.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified1To test the feature on non-Mainnet fixtures, the transition tool most plausibly needs one new input: the per-chain targeted-account list. Fork-transition configuration already exists. Level 1.
  • eip.md · Application to non-Mainnet chains — "Other chains have to generate the list for their own state" The account list depends on the chain. Test chains need their own list to exercise the transition.
  • eip.md · Test Cases — "Tested as the first transaction of the fork block" Tests must run the fork-block transition with targeted accounts in the pre-state.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: If clients hard-code the Mainnet list and tests place those addresses in the pre-state, no interface change is needed (level 0).
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified1Existing transition-fork and BAL expectation primitives need a local extension: an irregular state transition at the fork block with a configurable or fixed account list. No shared new abstraction is required.
  • eip.md · Test Cases Tests need fork-block transition fixtures with targeted accounts in the pre-state, post-fork-block state checks, and BAL index-0 nonce-change expectations.
  • eip.md · Interaction with EIP-7928 The BAL must contain a non-system-call NonceChange at index 0.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: If the framework must model chain-specific irregular-transition lists as a new fork-config abstraction, this could be level 2.
Security risks1The security conditions are local: list correctness, and CREATE to bumped accounts failing. They can be checked without changing other components' assumptions. Level 1.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "Both an omission and a spurious entry are consensus-relevant" List correctness is a consensus-critical, locally checkable condition.
  • eip.md · Abstract The transition defuses the CREATE collision risk with storage by making the accounts fail EIP-684's nonce check.
Confidence: Medium
Edge/boundary conditions1There is one boundary-sensitive mechanism: activation at the fork block (pre-fork, fork block, post-fork; listed vs non-listed accounts). Level 1.
  • eip.md · State transition — "At the start of the fork block" The transition applies exactly once, at the fork block, and before system calls and transactions.
  • eip.md · Test Cases — items 2 and 4 CREATE before and after the fork, and non-targeted accounts, give different outcomes.
Confidence: Medium
Show 21 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0None added.
  • eip.md · Specification No new instruction is defined.
Modified opcodes0Instruction semantics do not change; the different outcome comes from changed state under unchanged EIP-684 rules.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "now reverts under EIP-684 (because nonce != 0)" CREATE/CREATE2 semantics are unchanged. Only the target account's state changes.
Added precompiles0None added.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile is added.
Modified precompiles0None modified.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile is changed.
Added system contracts0No system contract is added.
  • eip.md · State transition No contract is deployed.
Modified system contracts0System contracts and the calls around them are unchanged.
  • eip.md · State transition — "before any pre-execution system contract calls" The transition is ordered before system calls but does not touch their state or rules.
EVM Gas rule changes0No execution-gas charging, metering or settlement rule changes. Level 0.
  • eip.md · State transition — "consumes no gas" The transition is gas-free and does not change any execution-gas rule.
  • eip.md · Test Cases — "CALL unchanged" CALL to A still does not charge new-account gas; existing gas rules are untouched.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No instruction's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes. The BAL recording is a non-opcode block-level change and is covered under cross-EIP interactions.
  • eip.md · State transition The transition is a block-level pre-execution step, not an instruction. No opcode's access or gas-charge sequence changes.
  • eip.md · Interaction with EIP-7928 BAL entries are recorded at index 0 for the transition. This adds entries but does not change what counts as a recordable access for opcodes.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob-gas accounting change.
  • eip.md · Specification Nothing in the specification touches blob gas.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting change.
  • eip.md · State transition — "consumes no gas" The state mutation is not charged and adds no state-gas mechanism.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund mechanism is defined.
New transaction types0None.
  • eip.md · State transition — "produces no transaction" No transaction envelope is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Transaction eligibility rules are unchanged.
  • eip.md · Test Cases — "CREATE reverts" A creation to a bumped account fails during execution under the existing EIP-684 rule. This is not a validity change.
New block / header fields0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No header or block field is added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No schema or codec change.
  • eip.md · Interaction with EIP-7928 The transition uses the existing AccountChanges/NonceChange schema. Only new values are added.
Block syncing changes0This is an execution-rule change only.
  • eip.md · State transition The change is a state mutation. No block RLP decoding or structural validation changes.
Engine API changes0No Engine API change.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API change. The BAL field is inherited from EIP-7928.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified0Baseline tests use arbitrary addresses and do not run the irregular transition, so their inputs and expected results do not change. Level 0.
  • eip.md · State transition Only listed accounts are modified, and only at the fork block. CREATE/CALL rules stay the same.
  • eip.md · Application to non-Mainnet chains Chains that never had such accounts end up with an empty list and MAY ignore the EIP, so ordinary test chains are expected to be unaffected.
  • supporting/eip-7610.md · Test Cases Existing tests deploy to targets with non-empty storage. This EIP does not change their rule, because it does not alter EIP-684 semantics for arbitrary addresses.
Uncertainty: If clients apply the Mainnet list on test chains, fork-transition tests into Hegotá would see changed post-states or created accounts. That would require rework across transition tests.
New invariant on pre-existing testsUnder-specified0No new output that baseline tests would need to assert.
  • eip.md · State transition — "produces no transaction, receipt, or log" No new log, receipt or header output is produced.
Uncertainty: If the Mainnet list applied to test chains, fork-block BAL entries would appear in every transition test.
Performance risks0No performance validation is needed.
  • eip.md · Rationale — "only needs 28 nonce bumps" The one-time work is trivial and bounded.
Cryptography0No cryptographic rule changes.
  • eip.md · Mainnet account list — "The slot information is not used by the state transition" The keccak hashes in the list are supporting information for verification and are not part of a new validation rule.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@6dac5e7491 EIPS/eip-8253.md committed 2026-10-07 · information cutoff 2026-10-07T22:23:55Z
Current master · File history · blob 1c8c02121c · sha256 4a26740655d1
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-8253.yaml · sha256 eaedb105bf40
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
supporting/eip-161.md, supporting/eip-684.md, supporting/eip-2935.md, supporting/eip-4788.md, supporting/eip-7002.md, supporting/eip-7251.md, supporting/eip-7523.md, supporting/eip-7610.md, supporting/eip-7928.md
Compare EIP-8253 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.