LGTM!

I'm nit-picking but it would be good to follow these 2 additional items that we started a few months ago. They don't need to be perfect but should help us in the future for finding issues or PRs in the future.

1. Using a similar naming conventions in the PRs (and issues as well), to make it super easy to find again in the future if something related pops up. A good example for this PR is feat(tests): update kzg point evaulation test vectors to official setup #336. So renaming it to something like:
   feat(tests): add double suicide revert test

2. Using the checklist in the PR draft: https://github.com/ethereum/execution-spec-tests/blob/main/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md.

• Tagging the related issues.
• Adding the appropriate labels, personally I'd add type:feat and scope:tests.
• Adding a line to the changelog.

Can this also be scripted in github CI checks?

Great idea, for the labels most likely and similarly with the Changelog!

Maybe after a PR is created, depending on the labels assigned by the CI, the relavent PR name is given.

Can discuss on this weeks call :)

git commit also should have feat(tests): add double suicide revert test message?

Also CI should try to fill the test and see if it actually fills without errors

git commit also should have feat(tests): add double suicide revert test message?

I'd say the ideal scenario is to have a single squashed commit message with the above yeah - purely for improved commit history on main :)

Also CI should try to fill the test and see if it actually fills without errors

Tox should already be doing this, in the order specified within the tox.ini file

• First for forks <=Shanghai -> here
• Then for development forks =Cancun -> here