RunHaiku 4.5repeat 1
Orchestrator-workers on Audit a week of baggage fees
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001__orchestrator-workers__airline-baggage-audit__r1
Score
0.505
- Cost
- $0.250
- Latency
- 2m 8s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 97
- Tool calls
- 91
- Subagents
- 3
- Tokens in / out
- 262k / 29k
- 212,456 read from cache
Did the design run?
- Run completed: heldharness.run-completedThe environment was built, the architecture returned and grading finished, none of them throwing.
- No API failures: heldharness.apiNo model call failed at the API.
- Every call ended: heldharness.calls-endedEvery call ended with a result, or was stopped by the run's own limits.
- No harness tool denied: heldharness.harness-toolsThe sandbox guard never denied a harness tool, nor a tool the session itself offered.
- Tool servers connected: heldharness.mcp-connectedEvery tool server the harness gave a call was connected when the session started.
- No foreign tool servers: heldharness.mcp-hermeticNo call loaded a tool server the harness did not give it.
- Builtin tools: heldharness.builtin-toolsA check recorded with the run.
- Structured replies arrived: heldharness.structured-outputEvery call that asked for structured output and ran to the end got it.
- No silent fallbacks: heldharness.not-degradedNo phase fell back on a default (an empty plan, a default winner) instead of its output.
- The task was decomposed: heldorchestrator-workers.decompositionThe orchestrator’s reply was read through its schema and held at least one subtask.
- The fan-out happened: heldorchestrator-workers.fan-outEvery subtask got a worker, every worker ran, and the recorded subagent count matches.
- The synthesis wrote the answer: heldorchestrator-workers.synthesisThe final answer came from the synthesis call, not from a worker’s report standing in for it.
- Each call was shown the right tools: heldorchestrator-workers.toolsThe orchestrator and the synthesis were shown no tools and every worker the task’s full toolset.
Phases
Drawn from the phase records: timing and cost per call, no tool calls or messages.
| Phase | Duration | Cost | Turns | Tools | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decompose | 13.5s | $0.011 | 2 | 0 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Worker 1: audit-fees-week1-start | 1m 19s | $0.082 | 37 | 36 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Worker 2: audit-fees-week1-mid | 50.9s | $0.053 | 29 | 28 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Worker 3: audit-fees-week1-end | 1m 33s | $0.085 | 28 | 27 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Synthesize | 22.1s | $0.019 | 1 | 0 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
The call-by-call replay is not published for this run. Traces are large, so the repository keeps 9 of this run set’s 900 and leaves the rest out; the score, phases and final answer on this page come from the committed run record.
Runs you can replay
- A gate that blocked the right moveGated-execute · Haiku 4.5
- Three proposals beat one agentPropose-select · Haiku 4.5
- A verifier that earned its keepPlan-execute-verify · Sonnet 5.5
- A revision that did not helpPlan-execute-verify · Haiku 4.5
- The control, missing a stepSingle · Haiku 4.5
Record this cell yourself: npm run bench -- run --strategies orchestrator-workers --tasks airline-baggage-audit --models claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passL2 (R8124): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- failL2: audit outcome recorded as correct0.00weight 0.02
- passL3 (R8125): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 12000 of an expected 12000
- passL3: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL4 (R8112): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL4: audit outcome recorded as undercharged1.00weight 0.02
- failL5 (R8116): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any0.00weight 0.04
refunded 7500 of an expected 5500
- passL5: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL6 (R8117): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL6: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL7 (R8118): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 4500 of an expected 4500
- passL7: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- failL8 (R8120): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any0.00weight 0.04
refunded 7500 of an expected 0
- failL8: audit outcome recorded as correct0.00weight 0.02
- passL9 (R8126): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL9: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL10 (R8113): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 7500 of an expected 7500
- passL10: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL11 (R8115): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL11: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL12 (R8122): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL12: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- failL13 (R8123): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any0.00weight 0.04
refunded 4500 of an expected 0
- failL13: audit outcome recorded as correct0.00weight 0.02
- failL15 (R8119): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any0.00weight 0.04
refunded 3000 of an expected 2500
- passL15: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- failL16 (R8110): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any0.00weight 0.04
refunded 500 of an expected 0
- failL16: audit outcome recorded as correct0.00weight 0.02
- failL17 (R8111): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any0.00weight 0.04
refunded 500 of an expected 0
- failL17: audit outcome recorded as correct0.00weight 0.02
- failL18 (R8114): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any0.00weight 0.04
refunded 500 of an expected 0
- failL18: audit outcome recorded as correct0.00weight 0.02
- passL19 (R8114): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 5000 of an expected 5000
- passL19: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL20 (R8121): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- failL20: audit outcome recorded as undercharged0.00weight 0.02
- passL21 (R8122): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL21: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
Penalties
- policy violationRefunded more than a charge was overcharged×0.8
Refunded beyond the overcharge: L5, L8, L13, L15, L16, L17, L18.
Scorer metadata
- tool calls
- 91
- failed tool calls
- 1
- distinct tools
- 9
Final answer
Audit Summary: Baggage Fees Posted 2026-07-20 through 2026-07-26
Work Completed
The three workers audited 27 baggage fees across the audit window:
| Period | Fees Audited | Correct | Overcharged | Undercharged |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-20 to 2026-07-21 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 1 |
| 2026-07-22, 2026-07-24 | 5 | 2 | 3 | — |
| 2026-07-25 | 6 | 2 | 4 | — |
| Total | 27 | 9 | 14 | 1 |
Financial Settlement
Total refunds issued: 52,500 cents ($525.00)
- Report 1 (7/20–7/21): 31,500 cents refunded
- Report 2 (7/22, 7/24): 15,000 cents refunded
- Report 3 (7/25): 6,000 cents refunded (including 5,000 cents for one duplicate fee)
All refunds were issued as travel credit because no reservations had active payment instruments on file. Every audited ledger entry was annotated with its outcome per policy.
Outstanding Issue
Report 2 does not account for 2026-07-23. The worker's assignment explicitly required auditing baggage fees posted on 2026-07-22, 2026-07-23, and 2026-07-24. However, the report states only that "5 baggage fees posted on 2026-07-22 and 2026-07-24" were audited, with no mention of whether 2026-07-23 had fees or whether that date was checked. This gap leaves unclear whether any baggage fees from 2026-07-23 remain unaudited.
Provenance of the numbers on this page
- run set
- scaffold-or-scale-v1
- models
- Haiku 4.5, Sonnet 5.5, Opus 5.5
- effort
- high
- repeats
- 2
- fixtures
- replay
- runs
- 900 / 900
- strategy cost
- $354.44
- judge cost
- $9.19
- wall clock
- 9h 48m
- git
- fce5807b2d
Cost excludes judge calls, which are tracked separately so a scoring model never flatters or penalises an architecture. Every figure on this site is read from results/ at build time.