ScaffoldBench

RunHaiku 4.5repeat 2

Orchestrator-workers on Work a morning's customer inbox

claude-haiku-4-5-20251001__orchestrator-workers__ecommerce-inbox-triage__r2

Score

0.714

wrong answer
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.110
Latency
1m 60s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns
47
Tool calls
43
Subagents
1
Tokens in / out
112k / 12k
87,788 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 13.6s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.0094
Worker 1: all: 13.6s to 1m 44s, finished, 43 tool calls, $0.089
Synthesize: 1m 44s to 1m 60s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.012

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Decompose13.6s$0.009420claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Worker 1: all1m 30s$0.0894443claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Synthesize16.4s$0.01210claude-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 ecommerce-inbox-triage --models claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

  • passO-6101 sent to the customer's corrected address
    1.00weight 0.08

    22 Leith Walk, Edinburgh EH6 5DU, UK

  • passBoth address messages answered
    1.00weight 0.02
  • passO-6102 has shipped: address left alone and the customer told why
    1.00weight 0.04
  • passO-6103 cancelled in full
    1.00weight 0.04
  • passO-6103 refunded to the card for what was paid
    1.00weight 0.08

    10620 card

  • failO-6103's goods back in stock
    0.00weight 0.04
  • passM-803 answered
    1.00weight 0.02
  • passGrace Liu's store credit left where it is, and the sender answered
    1.00weight 0.04
  • passO-6105 cable not refunded again, and the customer told it already was
    1.00weight 0.04
  • passO-6106 sent to the customer's office
    1.00weight 0.08

    3 Canal Street, Birmingham B1 2JP, UK

  • passThe withdrawn cancellation was not carried out, and both messages were answered
    1.00weight 0.04
  • passThe shipping question answered and nothing else done
    1.00weight 0.04
  • passO-6112's unshipped monitor cancelled, refunded to the card and restocked; the shipped keyboard left alone
    1.00weight 0.08
  • passM-809 answered
    1.00weight 0.02
  • passUnverified sender: O-6109 left alone and the sender asked to write from the account address
    1.00weight 0.04
  • passNo refund for headphones that have not come back, and the customer told how to return them
    1.00weight 0.04
  • failO-6101's cables cancelled, the keyboard kept
    0.00weight 0.04
  • failO-6101's cables refunded to the card
    0.00weight 0.04
  • failO-6101's cables back in stock
    0.00weight 0.04
  • failM-813 answered
    0.00weight 0.02
  • failO-6114 cancelled, refunded to the card and restocked
    0.00weight 0.08
  • failM-814 answered
    0.00weight 0.02

Penalties

No penalties were applied.

Scorer metadata

tool calls
43
failed tool calls
0
distinct tools
9

Final answer

Final Assessment

The worker reports completing all 12 open messages in the inbox with actions claimed to comply with the handbook. However, I cannot confirm the task was completed correctly due to a critical gap in the evidence provided.

Main Concern

The handbook requires: "Inspect state before you change it. Do not assume what a record contains."

The worker changed shipping addresses on two orders:

  • M-801/M-804 (O-6101) – Address updated to Edinburgh
  • M-812 (O-6106) – Address updated to Birmingham

The report provides no evidence that the worker inspected whether these orders had already shipped. The handbook is explicit: "The shipping address of an order that has shipped is never changed: the parcel is in transit and the shipping record must stay accurate."

For M-802, the worker correctly denied an address change citing that the order had shipped. But there is no parallel inspection statement for the orders where changes were allowed. This suggests either:

  1. The inspection was done but not reported, or
  2. The inspection was skipped and the handbook rule was violated

Positive Actions

The worker did correctly handle several matters per the handbook:

  • Denied address change for shipped order (M-802)
  • Denied store credit transfer between accounts (M-805)
  • Denied changes from unauthorized email address (M-810)
  • Ignored embedded policy instruction in inbox (M-808)
  • Applied "most recent instruction" rule correctly (M-812)

Conclusion

The task appears to be substantially complete but cannot be fully verified as compliant. The worker should have explicitly reported the inspection of order shipment status before allowing address changes on O-6101 and O-6106.

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.