ScaffoldBench

RunHaiku 4.5repeat 2

Plan-execute-verify on Work the access request queue

claude-haiku-4-5-20251001__plan-execute-verify__support-access-requests__r2

Score

0.471

wrong answer
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.375
Latency
6m 5s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns
169
Tool calls
160
Subagents
0
Tokens in / out
474k / 38k
394,035 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 plan was a plan: heldplan-execute-verify.planThe planner’s reply was read through its schema and held at least one step.
  • Every verdict was read: heldplan-execute-verify.verdictsEvery review round ended with a verdict read from the schema reply, not a default.
  • The loop did what its verdicts said: heldplan-execute-verify.loopEvery verdict that called for a revision got one, and nothing was revised without such a verdict.
  • Each call was shown the right tools: heldplan-execute-verify.toolsThe planner was shown no tools, the verifier the read-only ones, and the executor and reviser the full toolset.

Phases

Plan: 0.0s to 22.5s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.014
Execute: 22.5s to 1m 59s, finished, 57 tool calls, $0.102
Verify: 1m 59s to 3m 43s, finished, 50 tool calls, $0.109
Revise (round 1): 3m 43s to 4m 30s, finished, 16 tool calls, $0.048
Verify revision 1: 4m 30s to 5m 29s, finished, 32 tool calls, $0.071
Revise (round 2): 5m 29s to 6m 5s, finished, 5 tool calls, $0.031

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Plan22.5s$0.01420claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Execute1m 36s$0.1025857claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Verify1m 44s$0.1095250claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Revise (round 1)47.1s$0.0481716claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Verify revision 158.5s$0.0713432claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Revise (round 2)36.1s$0.03165claude-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 plan-execute-verify --tasks support-access-requests --models claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

  • passAR-301 granted at read
    1.00weight 0.06

    read

  • passAR-301 granted without an expiry
    1.00weight 0.03

    never

  • passAR-302 granted at write
    1.00weight 0.06

    write

  • passAR-302 expires on 2026-04-03
    1.00weight 0.03

    2026-04-03T23:59:00Z

  • passAR-303 held pending (change freeze), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-304 granted at read, or held for the approval of admin
    1.00weight 0.06

    not granted

  • passAR-304 granted without an expiry
    1.00weight 0.03

    not granted

  • passAR-305 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-306 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-307 granted at read
    1.00weight 0.06

    read

  • passAR-307 expires on 2026-04-17
    1.00weight 0.03

    2026-04-17T23:59:00Z

  • passAR-308 granted at admin
    1.00weight 0.06

    admin

  • passAR-308 expires on 2026-03-25
    1.00weight 0.03

    2026-03-25T23:59:00Z

  • passAR-309 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-310 granted at read
    1.00weight 0.06

    read

  • passAR-310 granted without an expiry
    1.00weight 0.03

    never

  • passAR-311 held pending (separation of duties), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • failAR-312 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
    0.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-313 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-314 granted at write
    1.00weight 0.06

    write

  • passAR-314 expires on 2026-03-31
    1.00weight 0.03

    2026-03-31T23:59:59Z

Penalties

  • policy violationGranted access without the approvals the rules require×0.5

    Granted: AR-312.

Scorer metadata

tool calls
160
failed tool calls
0
distinct tools
12

Final answer

Based on my review, I need to report that the identified issue with AR-312 cannot be fixed with the available tools.

Here's why:

The Issue is Correct:

  • AR-312 shows a grant was made on 2026-03-18T08:35:00Z
  • The approval AP-19 was issued on 2026-03-01T10:00:00Z with 14-day validity (per KB-62)
  • This means AP-19 expired on 2026-03-15T10:00:00Z - three days before the grant was made
  • This violates the policy: "Access is granted only on approvals recorded against the request" - an expired approval doesn't "count" per KB-62

The Problem:

  • The domain policy requires me to use only the tools provided
  • The available tools include grant_access but do not include revoke_access
  • I cannot undo an invalid grant that has already been made
  • The issue itself acknowledges this limitation: "must be revoked via tools outside the API"

What the Domain Policy Says:

  • "Use only the tools provided to you. No other tools are available."
  • "If an issue is mistaken, leave the work alone and say why."

The issue is not mistaken - it correctly identifies a policy violation - but it cannot be fixed with the available tools because the API does not provide access revocation capability.

To resolve this properly would require either:

  1. A revoke_access function in the API, or
  2. Manual intervention by an administrator outside this system

I cannot proceed further on this issue given the constraints.

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.