Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8355: Precompiles for ML-DSA Verification

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: DFILayers: execution
LLM Completescore 12
Human Pending· This EIP joined the Hegotá candidate lists after the human-checklist snapshot was captured.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2026-10-07 · 6dac5e7491 · EIP-8081 list: DFI

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-8355 adds three precompiles at 0x12, 0x13 and 0x14 that verify FIPS 204 ML-DSA signatures for ML-DSA-44, ML-DSA-65 and ML-DSA-87. Each one takes `pubkey ++ signature ++ message`, where the public key is compressed and the message has variable length, and always uses the empty context. Every call that does not run out of gas returns a 32-byte word: 1 when the signature verifies and 0 when it fails, is malformed or the input is too short. Gas is BASE + 6 per 32-byte message word, charged before verification. BASE is 6500, 9000 or 13500, and the message-word count is clamped at zero.

12MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 5 criteria affected
Plausible range
10–16 (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. Added precompiles3
  2. Edge/boundary conditions2
  3. Cryptography2
  4. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1

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: There are minor gaps. The input says 'big-endian throughout' while using FIPS 204 encodings. 'Out-of-range coefficients' is not mapped to concrete FIPS 204 checks. The gas figures are marked as needing benchmarking. The addresses collide with EIP-8051, and placement relative to other Hegotá precompiles is not addressed. Warm-set and access-list treatment of the new addresses is not stated.

Plausible total

10–16
recorded score 12 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (5)
  • Does 'big-endian throughout' only describe the absence of length fields, or does it modify FIPS 204 field encodings?
  • Which concrete checks count as 'out-of-range coefficients' for the pk and signature encodings?
  • Are the 0x12–0x14 addresses final, given EIP-8051's claim on 0x12/0x13?
  • Are the new addresses pre-warmed and recorded in block-level access lists like other precompiles?
  • Will the base gas values change after benchmarking?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • Address collision with EIP-8051 (0x12, 0x13).
  • 'big-endian throughout' versus FIPS 204's native encodings.
  • Gas figures are provisional, pending benchmarks.
  • Whether the three parameter sets count as one or three cryptographic mechanisms.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8355 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added precompiles3Multiple precompiles are added, and all three are complex: they take variable-length input and charge dynamic gas.
  • eip.md · Precompile addresses Three precompiles: VERIFY_MLDSA44 at 0x12, VERIFY_MLDSA65 at 0x13, VERIFY_MLDSA87 at 0x14.
  • eip.md · Input format The message is the variable-length trailing bytes.
  • eip.md · Gas cost Gas depends on input length (dynamic).
Confidence: High
Edge/boundary conditions2Several independent boundary-sensitive rules: the minimum-length threshold, the word-boundary gas rounding with clamp, and the malformed-encoding and norm-bound rejections, each per parameter set. Length drives both gas and parsing, but the combinations can be tested largely independently, so there is no elevated matrix.
  • eip.md · Input format If L < PK_LEN + SIG_LEN, return failure. L == PK_LEN + SIG_LEN (empty message) is valid. Thresholds differ per parameter set.
  • eip.md · Gas cost Per-word ceil on message length, with a max(0,...) clamp so short inputs cost exactly BASE.
  • eip.md · Semantics Malformed encodings (hint canonicality, coefficient range, ‖z‖ bound) return 0.
  • eip.md · Test Cases The TODO lists the EVM-specific edge cases: empty message, word boundaries, and one byte short of or over the minimum.
Confidence: Medium
CryptographyUnder-specified2A new standardized verification algorithm is added in three parameter instantiations. Each has different sizes, bounds and encodings and needs its own vector set. All are established, with Wycheproof and ACVP resources named, so the 'multiple mechanisms, all established' condition applies. Fixing ctx to empty stays within FIPS 204.
  • eip.md · Semantics Computes ML-DSA.Verify per FIPS 204, including ExpandA and the μ hashing, and rejects malformed hints, out-of-range coefficients and ‖z‖ bound failures.
  • eip.md · Precompile addresses Three distinct parameter sets: ML-DSA-44, ML-DSA-65 and ML-DSA-87.
  • eip.md · Test Cases Cites Wycheproof mldsa_{44,65,87}_verify and NIST ACVP ML-DSA-sigVer-FIPS204 as applicable test resources.
  • eip.md · Implementation maturity Claims mature implementations exist across client languages.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: If the three parameter sets are treated as one mechanism, the score would be 1.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1Baseline cases that treat 0x12–0x14 as empty accounts change expected return data and gas after the fork. Examples are tests that sweep precompile address ranges or target the first unassigned address. This rework is confined to address-boundary cases in one family.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Before activation, a call to these addresses returns empty output; afterwards it returns a 32-byte word and charges the schedule.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: How many baseline tests target these addresses depends on suites not supplied.
Security risks1The security conditions can be checked locally on the precompile: fail-closed outputs on malformed input, up-front gas charging, and correct rejection of forged or malformed signatures. No other component's assumptions change.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations Never reverts except on out-of-gas. Returndata length other than 32 means the precompile is absent. Gas is charged before verification. No domain separation (empty ctx).
  • eip.md · Semantics Malformed encodings must return failure, not revert.
Confidence: Medium
Performance risksUnder-specified1Three precompile workloads, plus per-byte message hashing, need component benchmarks to check that the base and per-word costs hold under worst-case inputs. Baseline end-to-end assumptions are unchanged.
  • eip.md · Gas schedule The figures require benchmarking against a reference implementation before they are final. The base cost covers ExpandA and the NTT work, and 6 gas/word covers SHAKE256.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations Charging gas before verification avoids free work.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Large-message or worst-case-input block stress testing could push this to 2.
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified1Only local compatibility checks are needed. Under EIP-8141, the precompiles must be callable from VERIFY frames (static context), including as a direct frame target. The EIP-8051 address collision is a fork-composition check. EIP-7951 is only a contrast in output format. The verification flow built on ARBITRARY signatures is an optional application design.
  • supporting/eip-8141.md · Behavior 'If resolved_target is an active precompile at the current fork, the frame dispatches it as an ordinary call would.' VERIFY frames run as STATICCALL.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Message last, with no length field An ML-DSA witness may travel as an EIP-8141 ARBITRARY entry and be copied with SIGDATACOPY before the precompile call.
  • supporting/eip-8051.md · Specification EIP-8051 assigns VERIFY_MLDSA to 0x12 and VERIFY_MLDSA_ETH to 0x13, which collide with this EIP's addresses.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Always returning 32 bytes Output convention deliberately differs from EIP-7951 P256VERIFY.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: If EIP-8141 VERIFY-frame flows using SIGDATACOPY plus the precompile are judged required coordinated cases, the score would be 2.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-8141, EIP-8051, EIP-7951
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified1Some localized wording is loose. The normative reference to FIPS 204 ML-DSA.Verify with ctx="" still supports one intended outcome, so there are no competing normative interpretations.
  • eip.md · Input format 'big-endian throughout' sits beside fields that use FIPS 204 encodings, which define their own bit packing.
  • eip.md · Semantics 'out-of-range coefficients' is listed as malformed without being mapped to specific FIPS 204 checks.
  • eip.md · Gas schedule Gas figures are given but described as needing benchmarking before final.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: If 'big-endian throughout' were read as overriding the FIPS 204 encodings, competing outcomes would arise and the score would be 2.
Show 20 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No new opcode.
  • eip.md · Specification No instructions are defined.
Modified opcodes0Calling new precompiles through unchanged instructions does not modify those instructions.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Only new precompile addresses are added. CALL semantics are unchanged; only the callee behavior is new.
Modified precompiles0No existing precompile changes.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Previously unassigned addresses; no existing precompile changes.
Uncertainty: EIP-8051 proposes different precompiles at 0x12/0x13, but it is not part of the baseline.
Added system contracts0No system contract is added.
  • eip.md · Precompile addresses Adds native precompiles, not EVM system contracts.
Modified system contracts0No system contract is modified.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility No existing behavior changes.
EVM Gas rule changesUnder-specified0The only gas content is the fee schedule of the new precompiles, which the template treats as an ordinary contract fee. No EVM charging, metering or settlement rule changes.
  • eip.md · Gas cost Defines a per-precompile fee of BASE + 6*ceil(max(0, L-PK_LEN-SIG_LEN)/32), charged up front. This is a fee for the new precompiles, not a change to EVM accounting rules.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The precompiles occupy previously unassigned addresses, so no existing behavior changes.
Uncertainty: Adding precompile addresses normally puts them in the pre-warmed access set, which changes cold/warm costs for calls to 0x12–0x14. The target does not state this. If it is counted as a parameter change, level 1 could apply.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode's ordering of state access or gas charging changes. The precompiles are stateless.
  • eip.md · Semantics Pure computation over the input; no state access is specified.
Uncertainty: The target does not say whether calls to the new precompile addresses enter the block-level access list. That treatment is inherited from generic precompile rules not supplied here.
Blob gas accounting changes0No change to blob-gas accounting.
  • eip.md · Specification No blob-related content.
State gas accounting changes0No change to state-gas accounting.
  • eip.md · Semantics Verification is stateless; nothing is written to state.
New EVM gas refund0No refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Gas cost Only a charge is defined; there is no refund.
New transaction types0No new transaction envelope.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction type is defined.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0No consensus transaction-validity rule changes. Precompile outputs are excluded from this criterion.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Message last, with no length field Use with EIP-8141 ARBITRARY entries is application-level. There is no new protocol signature scheme.
New block / header fields0No block or header member is added.
  • eip.md · Specification No header fields.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0Precompile input is calldata, not a protocol serialized schema.
  • eip.md · Input format Only the precompile calldata layout is defined.
Block syncing changes0No change to block RLP decoding or structural validation.
  • eip.md · Specification No block structure or decoding changes.
New fork activation mechanism0No activation-specific state transition is required.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Activation only enables the precompiles at the fork; there is no state migration.
Engine API changes0No Engine API change.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API content.
Transition-tool interface changes0No transition-tool interface change is required.
  • eip.md · Specification Only precompiles are added; there are no new transaction, block or environment fields.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Baseline tests need no new assertion.
  • eip.md · Output The only output is the precompile's return data; no new header, receipt or log field.
New test-framework primitives0Precompile call tests with variable-length input and dynamic gas use existing primitives. Importing vectors is vector work, not a new abstraction.
  • eip.md · Test Cases Vectors are concatenated byte inputs with expected 32-byte outputs and gas. The TODO plans to re-encode Wycheproof and ACVP vectors.
Uncertainty: Converting the Wycheproof/ACVP sets may need a converter script, but that is not a framework primitive.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@6dac5e7491 EIPS/eip-8355.md committed 2026-10-07 · information cutoff 2026-10-07T22:23:55Z
Current master · File history · blob 2db59ad3f9 · sha256 01207bab5558
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-8355.yaml · sha256 1a71da538893
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
supporting/eip-7951.md, supporting/eip-8051.md, supporting/eip-8141.md
Compare EIP-8355 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.