chore: add claude skills to help with complexity assessments

.claude/commands/assess-complexity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+---
+description: Create an EIP complexity assessment using the standard template. Analyzes the EIP specification and scores 24 anchors for testing complexity.
+argument-hint: <EIP-number>
+model: opus
+allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash(gh:*), WebFetch
+---
+
+# EIP Complexity Assessment
+
+You are an expert Ethereum protocol analyst with deep knowledge of the EVM, consensus mechanisms, transaction types, system contracts, and the execution-specs testing framework. Your task is to create a comprehensive complexity assessment for EIP-$ARGUMENTS.
+
+## Important: Think Deeply
+
+This is a critical assessment that will guide testing efforts. Before scoring each anchor, think through:
+- What specific mechanisms does this EIP introduce or modify?
+- How does this interact with existing protocol components?
+- What edge cases and boundary conditions exist?
+- What is the testing burden for this change?
+
+Take your time to analyze thoroughly. Accuracy is more important than speed.
+
+## Step 1: Fetch the EIP Specification
+
+Use WebFetch to retrieve the EIP markdown from:
+`https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ethereum/EIPs/master/EIPS/eip-$ARGUMENTS.md`
+
+Read the EIP carefully, noting:
+- The abstract and motivation
+- Specification details (new opcodes, precompiles, transaction types, etc.)
+- Security considerations
+- Backwards compatibility notes
+
+## Step 2: Check for Open PRs to this EIP
+
+Run this command to find open PRs that may modify this EIP:
+```bash
+gh api "search/issues?q=repo:ethereum/EIPs+is:pr+is:open+$ARGUMENTS+in:title" --jq '.items[] | "PR #\(.number): \(.title)"'
+```
+
+Note any open PRs for the final assessment.
+
+## Step 3: Read the Template and Examples
+
+Read the template:
+- `Templates/EIP-Complexity-Assessment.md`
+
+Read 2-3 existing assessments for reference on scoring patterns and rationale style:
+- `complexity_assessments/EIPs/EIP-7805.md` (medium complexity example)
+- `complexity_assessments/EIPs/EIP-7708.md` (low complexity example)
+
+## Step 4: Create the Assessment
+
+For each of the 24 anchors in the checklist, analyze the EIP and determine:
+1. **Score (0-3)**: Based on the anchor definitions in the template
+2. **Rationale**: Brief justification referencing specific EIP mechanisms
+
+### Anchors to Score
+
+Score each anchor systematically:
+
+1. **EVM Gas rule changes** - New gas accounting rules?
+2. **Blob gas accounting changes** - Blob-related gas changes?
+3. **New EVM gas refund** - New refund mechanisms?
+4. **Patterns affecting pre-existing tests** - Will existing tests need updates?
+5. **Transition-tool interface changes** - New t8n fields/mechanisms?
+6. **Cryptography** - New crypto primitives or algorithms?
+7. **Edge/boundary conditions** - Boundary-prone mechanisms?
+8. **Block syncing changes** - RLP validation changes?
+9. **Engine API changes** - New fields or endpoints?
+10. **Added system contracts** - New system contracts?
+11. **Modified system contracts** - Changes to existing contracts?
+12. **Added opcodes** - New EVM opcodes?
+13. **Modified opcodes** - Changes to existing opcodes?
+14. **Added precompiles** - New precompiled contracts?
+15. **Modified precompiles** - Changes to existing precompiles?
+16. **Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)** - Encoding format changes?
+17. **New transaction types** - New tx type introduced?
+18. **New or modified transaction validity** - Validity rule changes?
+19. **New block/header fields** - New header fields?
+20. **New fork activation mechanism** - State changes at fork activation?
+21. **Performance risks** - Performance validation needed?
+22. **Security risks** - Security-sensitive mechanisms?
+23. **Cross-EIP interactions** - Dependencies on other EIPs?
+
+### Scoring Guidelines
+
+- **0**: No impact in this category
+- **1**: Minor/simple change, limited testing scope
+- **2**: Moderate change, affects multiple components
+- **3**: Major/complex change, extensive testing required
+- **4**: Exceptional circumstances only (document why)
+
+Some anchors only allow 0 or 3 (binary impact):
+- Modified opcodes
+- Encoding changes
+- New transaction types
+- New block/header fields
+- New fork activation mechanism
+
+## Step 5: Fill in the Specs Section
+
+Under "Execution Specs > Specs", write a brief summary of the key specification changes this EIP introduces. Focus on what changes in the protocol, not the full EIP text.
+
+## Step 6: Calculate Total and Determine Tier
+
+Sum all anchor scores for the total (max 72).
+
+Determine complexity tier:
+- **< 10**: 🟢 Low Complexity
+- **10-19**: 🟡 Medium Complexity
+- **>= 20**: 🔴 High Complexity
+
+## Step 7: Write Special Considerations and Notes
+
+- **Special Considerations**: Factors that make this EIP particularly complex beyond the checklist
+- **Notes**: Points for test authors that don't affect scoring
+
+## Step 8: Handle Open PRs
+
+If there are open PRs to this EIP, append a section at the end:
+
+```markdown
+---
+
+## Open PRs Notice
+
+At the time of writing this complexity assessment, EIP-$ARGUMENTS had the following open PRs to its specification:
+
+- [List the PRs found in Step 2]
+
+**Impact Assessment**: [Brief assessment of whether these PRs would materially change the complexity scores if merged]
+```
+
+## Step 9: Write the Assessment File
+
+Write the complete assessment to:
+`complexity_assessments/EIPs/EIP-$ARGUMENTS.md`
+
+The file should follow the exact structure of the template, with all sections filled in.
+
+## Output
+
+After writing the file, provide a brief summary:
+- Total score and complexity tier
+- Key drivers of complexity (highest-scoring anchors)
+- Any special considerations worth highlighting

.claude/commands/review-complexity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
+---
+description: Review a complexity assessment PR or local file. Validates scores against the EIP specification and provides structured feedback.
+argument-hint: <PR-number or file-path>
+model: opus
+allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash(gh:*), WebFetch
+---
+
+# Complexity Assessment Review
+
+You are an expert Ethereum protocol analyst reviewing a complexity assessment. Your role is to validate the assessment's accuracy, identify any scoring issues, and provide constructive feedback.
+
+## Important: Use Extended Thinking
+
+Complexity assessments guide testing prioritization. An incorrect score could lead to:
+- Under-testing of critical changes (if scored too low)
+- Wasted resources on simple changes (if scored too high)
+
+For each scored anchor, think through:
+- Does the EIP actually introduce/modify what this anchor measures?
+- Is the score consistent with the rubric definition (0-3 scale)?
+- Does the rationale accurately reflect the EIP specification?
+- Are there mechanisms the assessor may have missed?
+
+Take your time to analyze thoroughly. Accuracy is more important than speed.
+
+## Step 1: Determine Input Type
+
+The argument is: `$ARGUMENTS`
+
+Determine if this is:
+- **PR number**: A plain number (e.g., `27`, `123`) → fetch from GitHub PR
+- **File path**: Contains `/` or `.md` (e.g., `complexity_assessments/EIPs/EIP-7971.md`) → read local file
+
+## Step 2: Fetch the Assessment
+
+### If PR number:
+
+Get the PR information:
+```bash
+gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --json title,body,author,files,additions,deletions
+```
+
+Get the PR diff to see the assessment content:
+```bash
+gh pr diff $ARGUMENTS
+```
+
+### If local file:
+
+Read the file directly using the Read tool with the provided path.
+
+If the path is relative, it's relative to the repository root.
+
+---
+
+From the assessment, identify:
+- Which EIP is being assessed (from the file name, e.g., `EIP-7971.md` → EIP-7971)
+- What scores and rationales were provided in the checklist table
+
+## Step 3: Fetch the EIP Specification
+
+Extract the EIP number from the assessment file name (e.g., `EIP-1234.md` → 1234).
+
+Fetch the EIP using WebFetch:
+```
+https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ethereum/EIPs/master/EIPS/eip-{number}.md
+```
+
+Read the EIP thoroughly to understand the actual specification.
+
+## Step 4: Read the Assessment Template
+
+Read `Templates/EIP-Complexity-Assessment.md` to understand:
+- The scoring rubric for each anchor (0-3 scale)
+- Which anchors are binary (0 or 3 only)
+- What constitutes proper rationale
+
+## Step 5: Review Each Scored Anchor
+
+For each anchor in the assessment's checklist table:
+
+1. **Verify the score is appropriate** based on the EIP specification and anchor rubric
+2. **Check the rationale** is sufficient and accurate
+3. **Note any discrepancies** between the score and EIP content
+
+### Common Issues to Look For
+
+**Under-scoring (score too low):**
+- EIP introduces mechanism but anchor scored 0
+- Complex mechanism scored as simple (1 instead of 2-3)
+- Missing consideration of indirect effects
+
+**Over-scoring (score too high):**
+- Score of 2-3 without clear justification
+- Assuming complexity that isn't in the EIP
+- Double-counting (same mechanism counted in multiple anchors)
+
+**Rationale issues:**
+- Empty rationale for non-zero scores
+- Rationale doesn't match the score given
+- Vague rationale that doesn't reference specific EIP mechanisms
+
+**Binary anchor violations:**
+- These anchors should only be 0 or 3:
+  - Modified opcodes
+  - Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)
+  - New transaction types
+  - New block/header fields
+  - New fork activation mechanism
+
+## Step 6: Verify Totals and Tier
+
+1. Sum the individual scores - does it match the stated total?
+2. Verify the complexity tier matches the total:
+   - < 10 → 🟢 Low Complexity
+   - 10-19 → 🟡 Medium Complexity
+   - >= 20 → 🔴 High Complexity
+
+## Step 7: Review Special Considerations and Notes
+
+- Are there complexity factors not captured in the anchors?
+- Are the notes helpful for future test authors?
+- Is anything missing that should be called out?
+
+## Step 8: Check Specs Section
+
+- Is the "Specs" section filled in with a meaningful summary?
+- Does it accurately reflect the EIP's key changes?
+
+## Step 9: Provide Structured Feedback
+
+Present your review in this format:
+
+---
+
+## Review: EIP-{number} Complexity Assessment
+
+**Source**: [PR #X | Local file: path/to/file.md]
+
+### Summary
+- **Overall Assessment**: [Approve / Request Changes / Comment]
+- **Total Score Accuracy**: [Correct / Incorrect (explain)]
+- **Complexity Tier**: [Correct / Incorrect]
+
+### Scoring Review
+
+| Anchor | Submitted | Suggested | Issue |
+|--------|-----------|-----------|-------|
+| [Only list anchors with issues] | | | |
+
+### Detailed Feedback
+
+#### Scores to Adjust
+[List any scores that should be changed, with reasoning]
+
+#### Missing Considerations
+[Any factors not accounted for in the assessment]
+
+#### Rationale Improvements
+[Suggestions for better justifying scores]
+
+### Recommendations
+
+[Actionable next steps for the author]
+
+---
+
+## Output
+
+Provide your complete review following the format above. Be constructive and specific - the goal is to improve the assessment's accuracy, not to criticize.