ScaffoldBench

RunHaiku 4.5repeat 2

Orchestrator-workers on Audit a week of baggage fees

claude-haiku-4-5-20251001__orchestrator-workers__airline-baggage-audit__r2

Score

0.351

wrong answer
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.169
Latency
2m 10s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns
89
Tool calls
85
Subagents
1
Tokens in / out
217k / 19k
183,627 read from cache

Did the design run?

every check held
  • 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

Decompose: 0.0s to 26.2s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.016
Worker 1: all: 26.2s to 1m 60s, finished, 85 tool calls, $0.143
Synthesize: 1m 60s to 2m 10s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.0095

Drawn from the phase records: timing and cost per call, no tool calls or messages.

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Decompose26.2s$0.01620claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Worker 1: all1m 33s$0.1438685claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Synthesize10.3s$0.009510claude-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

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 any
    1.00weight 0.04

    refunded 0 of an expected 0

  • passL2: audit outcome recorded as correct
    1.00weight 0.02
  • failL3 (R8125): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    0.00weight 0.04

    refunded 0 of an expected 12000

  • failL3: audit outcome recorded as overcharged
    0.00weight 0.02
  • passL4 (R8112): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    1.00weight 0.04

    refunded 0 of an expected 0

  • passL4: audit outcome recorded as undercharged
    1.00weight 0.02
  • failL5 (R8116): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    0.00weight 0.04

    refunded 7500 of an expected 5500

  • passL5: audit outcome recorded as overcharged
    1.00weight 0.02
  • failL6 (R8117): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    0.00weight 0.04

    refunded 7500 of an expected 0

  • failL6: audit outcome recorded as correct
    0.00weight 0.02
  • passL7 (R8118): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    1.00weight 0.04

    refunded 4500 of an expected 4500

  • passL7: audit outcome recorded as overcharged
    1.00weight 0.02
  • failL8 (R8120): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    0.00weight 0.04

    refunded 7500 of an expected 0

  • failL8: audit outcome recorded as correct
    0.00weight 0.02
  • failL9 (R8126): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    0.00weight 0.04

    refunded 7500 of an expected 0

  • failL9: audit outcome recorded as correct
    0.00weight 0.02
  • passL10 (R8113): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    1.00weight 0.04

    refunded 7500 of an expected 7500

  • passL10: audit outcome recorded as overcharged
    1.00weight 0.02
  • passL11 (R8115): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    1.00weight 0.04

    refunded 0 of an expected 0

  • passL11: audit outcome recorded as correct
    1.00weight 0.02
  • passL12 (R8122): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    1.00weight 0.04

    refunded 0 of an expected 0

  • passL12: audit outcome recorded as correct
    1.00weight 0.02
  • failL13 (R8123): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    0.00weight 0.04

    refunded 4500 of an expected 0

  • failL13: audit outcome recorded as correct
    0.00weight 0.02
  • failL15 (R8119): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    0.00weight 0.04

    refunded 3000 of an expected 2500

  • passL15: audit outcome recorded as overcharged
    1.00weight 0.02
  • failL16 (R8110): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    0.00weight 0.04

    refunded 500 of an expected 0

  • failL16: audit outcome recorded as correct
    0.00weight 0.02
  • failL17 (R8111): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    0.00weight 0.04

    refunded 500 of an expected 0

  • failL17: audit outcome recorded as correct
    0.00weight 0.02
  • failL18 (R8114): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    0.00weight 0.04

    refunded 500 of an expected 0

  • failL18: audit outcome recorded as correct
    0.00weight 0.02
  • passL19 (R8114): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    1.00weight 0.04

    refunded 5000 of an expected 5000

  • passL19: audit outcome recorded as overcharged
    1.00weight 0.02
  • passL20 (R8121): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    1.00weight 0.04

    refunded 0 of an expected 0

  • failL20: audit outcome recorded as undercharged
    0.00weight 0.02
  • failL21 (R8122): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any
    0.00weight 0.04

    refunded 7500 of an expected 0

  • failL21: audit outcome recorded as correct
    0.00weight 0.02

Penalties

  • policy violationRefunded more than a charge was overcharged×0.8

    Refunded beyond the overcharge: L5, L6, L8, L9, L13, L15, L16, L17, L18, L21.

Scorer metadata

tool calls
85
failed tool calls
0
distinct tools
8

Final answer

Audit Completion Summary

Based on the worker report, the baggage fee audit for 2026-07-20 through 2026-07-26 has been completed in full.

Results

19 baggage fees audited across the specified date range:

  • 5 entries marked CORRECT — no action required
  • 1 entry marked UNDERCHARGED — recorded per policy (undercharges are not re-billed)
  • 13 entries marked OVERCHARGED — refunded a total of $630.00 to original payment methods or issued as travel credit where payment instruments were unavailable

Key Findings

The audit identified three systemic issues:

  1. Frequent-flyer tier bonuses misapplied (9 entries) — silver and gold tier passengers did not receive their contractual +1 and +2 free baggage allowances
  2. Duplicate fees (2 entries) — two reservations were charged twice for the same bags; the second fees were refunded in full per policy
  3. Minor calculation errors (3 entries) — small overcharges (500¢ amounts)

Audit Trail

All 19 entries have been annotated with their audit outcome (correct/overcharged/undercharged) per the domain policy requirement.

The task is complete.

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.