Prospective · frozen 2026-08-26 snapshot
Hegotá candidate complexity assessment
Original PFI result: 776 across 37 scored EIPs. The SFI/CFI extension adds 80 across 2 scored EIPs, producing a combined visibility view of 856 across 39 scored Execution Layer surfaces. 7 PFI entries remain not applicable or explicitly excluded.
- Complete 2
- Available in open PR 15
- Draft PR 8
- Pending 21
Human checklist sources: ethspecs/pm at 2026-08-14 plus 24 open pull requests (captured 2026-09-13)
Statuses follow the real source state. Complete is merged on main; Available in open PR exists only in an open pull request; Draft PR is in a draft pull request; Incomplete has unresolved cells or inconsistent totals and carries no score; Pending has no checklist anywhere. A missing checklist is never a zero.
- #73 Add complexity assessments · EIP-4758, EIP-7709, EIP-8188, EIP-8205 · updated 2026-05-29
- #105 Add EIP-4758 complexity assessment · EIP-4758 · updated 2026-08-17
- #106 Add EIP-8146 complexity assessment · EIP-8146 · updated 2026-08-17
- #108 Add EIP-8279 complexity assessment (draft) · EIP-8279 · updated 2026-08-17
- #109 Add EIP-8200 complexity assessment (draft) · EIP-8200 · updated 2026-08-18
- #110 Add EIP-8372 complexity assessment (draft) · EIP-8372 · updated 2026-08-24
- #111 Add EIP-8250 complexity assessment (draft) · EIP-8250 · updated 2026-08-18
- #112 Add EIP-7666 complexity assessment (draft) · EIP-7666 · updated 2026-08-18
- #113 Add EIP-7645 complexity assessment · EIP-7645 · updated 2026-08-18
- #114 Add EIP-2488 complexity assessment · EIP-2488 · updated 2026-08-18
- #115 Add EIP-3298 complexity assessment · EIP-3298 · updated 2026-08-18
- #116 Update EIP-5920 complexity assessment to checklist revision 2 · EIP-5920 · updated 2026-08-18
- #118 Update EIP-7668 complexity assessment to checklist revision 2 · EIP-7668 · updated 2026-08-18
- #120 Add EIP-7709 complexity assessment · EIP-7709 · updated 2026-08-24
- #122 Rename checklist "anchors" to "criteria" (draft) · EIP-5920, EIP-7668, EIP-7805, EIP-8141 · updated 2026-08-20
- #124 Add EIP-7862 complexity assessment · EIP-7862 · updated 2026-08-24
- #125 Add EIP-8188 complexity assessment · EIP-7862, EIP-8188 · updated 2026-08-24
- #126 Add EIP-8115 complexity assessment (draft) · EIP-8115 · updated 2026-08-24
- #127 Add EIP-8304 complexity assessment · EIP-8304 · updated 2026-08-24
- #128 Add EIP-7819 complexity assessment (draft) · EIP-7819 · updated 2026-08-24
- #129 Add EIP-8368 complexity assessment (draft) · EIP-8368 · updated 2026-08-24
- #132 Add EIP-7906 complexity assessment · EIP-7906 · updated 2026-08-24
- #133 Add EIP-8272 complexity assessment · EIP-8272 · updated 2026-08-25
- #134 Add EIP-7923 complexity assessment · EIP-7923 · updated 2026-08-25
Where the Complexity Comes From
Each segment sums one criterion across the fork's scored LLM assessments. Hover or focus a segment for its points, share, and the number of contributing EIPs.
Composition table: points per criterion and fork
| Criterion | Hegotá |
|---|---|
| Added opcodes | 18 · 2% · 8 EIPs |
| Modified opcodes | 36 · 4% · 12 EIPs |
| Modified precompiles | 7 · 1% · 3 EIPs |
| Added system contracts | 16 · 2% · 9 EIPs |
| Modified system contracts | 4 · 0% · 4 EIPs |
| EVM Gas rule changes | 39 · 5% · 23 EIPs |
| State-access ordering within opcode execution | 19 · 2% · 10 EIPs |
| Blob gas accounting changes | 2 · 0% · 1 EIP |
| State gas accounting changes | 7 · 1% · 4 EIPs |
| New EVM gas refund | 4 · 0% · 2 EIPs |
| New transaction types | 3 · 0% · 1 EIP |
| New or modified transaction validity mechanisms | 21 · 2% · 9 EIPs |
| New block / header fields | 6 · 1% · 2 EIPs |
| Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ) | 33 · 4% · 11 EIPs |
| Block syncing changes | 12 · 1% · 6 EIPs |
| New fork activation mechanism | 30 · 4% · 10 EIPs |
| Engine API changes | 9 · 1% · 4 EIPs |
| Transition-tool interface changes | 15 · 2% · 7 EIPs |
| Patterns affecting pre-existing tests | 69 · 8% · 37 EIPs |
| New invariant on pre-existing tests | 22 · 3% · 14 EIPs |
| New test-framework primitives | 16 · 2% · 11 EIPs |
| Security risks | 93 · 11% · 38 EIPs |
| Performance risks | 75 · 9% · 34 EIPs |
| Edge/boundary conditions | 106 · 12% · 39 EIPs |
| Cryptography | 13 · 2% · 8 EIPs |
| Cross-EIP interactions | 105 · 12% · 36 EIPs |
| Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus | 76 · 9% · 34 EIPs |
| Total | 856 |
Complexity Assessments
LLM rows were automated using the GPT-5.6 Sol LLM at xhigh reasoning effort, evaluating the EIP revision linked in the Assessment Input column against version 2 of STEEL’s complexity-assignment template. Human rows are STEEL reviewers’ published checklists; their status badge links to the pull request or merged report. Select rows from either evaluator to compare them, or open an EIP for its full assessment.
Totals and charts use the original 2026-08-26 candidate snapshot. The table retains every published evaluation, grouped by EIP with newer evaluations first. Evaluation dates link to the assessed spec revision; human checklist evaluation dates are not recorded.
Scored proposals
Every scored assessment as a stacked complexity bar, ranked by total on one shared scale. Switch evaluator to rank the human checklists, or show both per EIP. The seven not-applicable entries remain in the table above.
Caveats
- The original PFI-only result remains 776 across 37 scored EIPs and is not rewritten by this combined view.
- EIP-7805 was SFI and EIP-8141 was CFI, rather than PFI, at the frozen 2026-08-26 snapshot.
- Scores cover execution-layer and execution-client networking surfaces only; EIP-7805 consensus-layer work is not scored.
- Proposal splitting and cross-EIP interactions can overlap complexity, so score sums are not additive implementation-effort estimates.
- No post-snapshot proposal text, implementation evidence, outcomes, or later fork decisions were available to assessors.
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 opcodesIntroduces new opcodes
- Modified opcodesModifies pre-existing opcodes
- Added precompilesIntroduces new precompiles
- Modified precompilesModifies pre-existing precompiles logic or gas-accounting
- Added system contractsIntroduces new system contract, stateful or not
- Modified system contractsModifies pre-existing system contracts
Gas and accounting
Execution, blob, and state gas rules, refunds, and where charges happen inside opcodes.
- EVM Gas rule changesNew EVM gas accounting rules
- State-access ordering within opcode execution · Checklist revision 2 onlyChanges *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.
- Blob gas accounting changesNew Blob gas accounting rules which potentially affect pre-existing tests
- State gas accounting changes · Checklist revision 2 onlyNew 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.
- New EVM gas refundNew gas-refund mechanism
Blocks, transactions, and encoding
Transaction types and validity, block and header fields, encodings, syncing, and activation-time changes.
- New transaction typesIntroduces a new transaction type
- New or modified transaction validity mechanismsCreates new or modifies pre-existing transaction types' validation mechanisms
- New block / header fieldsIntroduces new block or block header fields
- Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)Introduces encoding changes at the transaction/block/interfaces level
- Block syncing changesModifies block RLP validation mechanisms that require test client syncing.
- New fork activation mechanismModifies state, internal variables, or similar, at the fork activation block
Client interfaces
Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.
- Engine API changesIntroduces new fields to the Engine API directives
- Engine API encoding changes · Checklist revision 1 onlyEngine API encoding changes (the revision-1 template defines no anchor text for this row).
- Transition-tool interface changesModifies or adds new fields to the transition tool interface.
Testing impact
Rework, new invariants, and new primitives required in the test framework.
- Patterns affecting pre-existing testsImplements a new validation mechanism or rule that translates in reworking pre-existing tests
- New invariant on pre-existing tests · Checklist revision 2 onlyTests 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.
- New test-framework primitives · Checklist revision 2 onlyRequires new abstractions in the test framework itself — expectation types, modifiers, helpers — beyond writing test functions with what already exists.
Risk and validation
Security, performance, boundary conditions, and cryptography that need validation.
- Security risksIntroduces or modifies mechanisms that could compromise the security of the chain, users, validators, or other stakeholders, if not implemented properly.
- Performance risksIntroduces or modifies mechanisms and requires performance validation.
- Edge/boundary conditionsFeature contains edge/boundary conditions.
- CryptographyIntroduces new cryptography mechanisms or modifies existing functionality that involves cryptography
Coordination
Cross-EIP interactions and behavior that clients must agree on before tests exist.
- Cross-EIP interactionsIntroduces or modifies mechanisms that affect other EIPs in either the same or past forks.
- Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus · Checklist revision 2 onlyThe 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.