Currently, we use `assert` in RPC code to document logic and code assumptions. However, it seems a bit extreme to abort all of Bitcoin Core on an assert failure in one of the RPC threads. I suggest to replace all checks with a macro `THROW_LOGIC_ERROR_IF_ASSERT_FAILS(condition)` that does what it says. That logic error will then be returned to the rpc caller and will include instructions to report the error to our issue tracker.

Any objections or naming suggestions for that macro?
{
            RPCHelpMan{"reconsiderblock",
                "\nRemoves invalidity status of a block, its ancestors and its descendants, reconsider them for activation.\n"
                "This can be used to undo the effects of invalidateblock.\n",
                {
                    {"blockhash", RPCArg::Type::STR_HEX, RPCArg::Optional::NO, "the hash of the block to reconsider"},
                },
                RPCResults{},
                RPCExamples{
                    HelpExampleCli("reconsiderblock", "\"blockhash\"")
            + HelpExampleRpc("reconsiderblock", "\"blockhash\"")
                },
            }.Check(request);
    uint256 hash(ParseHashV(request.params[0], "blockhash"));
    {
        LOCK(cs_main);
        CBlockIndex* pblockindex = LookupBlockIndex(hash);
        if (!pblockindex) {
            throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_ADDRESS_OR_KEY, "Block not found");
        }
        ResetBlockFailureFlags(pblockindex);
    }
    CValidationState state;
    ActivateBestChain(state, Params());
    if (!state.IsValid()) {
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_DATABASE_ERROR, FormatStateMessage(state));
    }
    return NullUniValue;
}
static UniValue getchaintxstats(const JSONRPCRequest& request)