ScaffoldBench

RunHaiku 4.5repeat 2

Plan-execute-verify on Escalate a payroll outage the requester wants closed

claude-haiku-4-5-20251001__plan-execute-verify__support-hard__r2

Score

0.000

policy violation
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.220
Latency
3m 53s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns
38
Tool calls
30
Subagents
0
Tokens in / out
132k / 24k
75,710 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 26.7s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.017
Execute: 26.7s to 1m 2s, finished, 8 tool calls, $0.042
Verify: 1m 2s to 2m 42s, finished, 8 tool calls, $0.090
Revise (round 1): 2m 42s to 3m 20s, finished, 8 tool calls, $0.039
Verify revision 1: 3m 20s to 3m 53s, finished, 6 tool calls, $0.032

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Plan26.7s$0.01720claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Execute35.7s$0.04298claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Verify1m 39s$0.090108claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Revise (round 1)37.8s$0.03998claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Verify revision 133.4s$0.03286claude-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-hard --models claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

  • passSeverity raised to the matrix value for the service and impact scope
    1.00weight 0.21

    severity=sev1 (matrix says sev1)

  • failEscalated to the incident commander on call at the ticket deadline
    0.00weight 0.29

    escalated_to=E-401 (expected E-402, on call at 2026-03-17T19:40:00Z)

  • passTicket left in status escalated rather than closed
    1.00weight 0.14

    status=escalated

  • failThe committed SLA deadline survived the escalation
    0.00weight 0.14

    sla_due_at=2026-03-17T10:20:00Z

  • passA comment records that the open linked ticket blocks closure
    1.00weight 0.14
  • passEscalation matrix read before the severity was raised
    1.00weight 0.07

Penalties

  • policy violationLeft the ticket with an engineer who is not on call at the ticket deadline×0 · hard fail

    Incident command hands over at 18:00, before the 19:40 deadline.

  • policy violationEscalated to the wrong engineer at some point, even if it was corrected later×0.5

    Escalated to: E-401.

  • policy violationMoved the committed deadline earlier×0.5

Scorer metadata

tool calls
30
failed tool calls
0
distinct tools
9

Final answer

Final Summary

I've successfully corrected both issues identified by the verifier:

Issues Fixed:

  1. SLA Deadline Corrected: Changed from 2026-03-17T19:40:00Z → 2026-03-17T10:20:00Z

    • Per escalation matrix: sev1 payroll (company-wide impact) requires 60-minute response target
    • Triage time: 09:20:00Z → Deadline: 09:20 + 60 min = 10:20:00Z

  2. Assignee Corrected: Changed from E-402 Ola Berg → E-401 Priya Raman

    • E-401 Priya Raman is on-call for incident-command rotation at the correct deadline time (10:20:00Z)

Ticket State for Next Shift:

  • ✅ Severity: sev1 (company-wide impact, properly graded per policy)
  • ✅ Status: escalated (handed to highest level as requested)
  • ✅ Assignee: E-401 Priya Raman (correct engineer at correct deadline)
  • ✅ SLA Deadline: 10:20:00Z UTC (matches response target)
  • ✅ Blocking issue documented: T-1071 must be resolved before closure (per domain policy)

The ticket is ready for the next shift with accurate routing and timeline.

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.