ScaffoldBench

RunHaiku 4.5repeat 1

Plan-execute on HTTP 301 vs 308

claude-haiku-4-5-20251001__plan-execute__research-http-redirects__r1

Score

0.854

wrong answer
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.105
+ $0.061 judging
Latency
1m 9s
setup 0.0s, grading 5.0s
Turns
19
Tool calls
15
Subagents
0
Tokens in / out
179k / 6.2k
142,757 read from cache
Attempts
2
retried after API errors

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.
  • Judge answered: heldharness.judgeAt least one grading call returned a usable verdict.
  • The plan was a plan: heldplan-execute.planThe planner’s reply was read through its schema and held at least one step.
  • Each call was shown the right tools: heldplan-execute.toolsThe planner was shown no tools and the executor the task’s full toolset.

Phases

Plan: 0.0s to 14.7s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.012
Execute: 14.7s to 1m 9s, finished, 15 tool calls, $0.093

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Plan14.7s$0.01230claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Execute54.7s$0.0931615claude-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 --tasks research-http-redirects --models claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

  • passStates that 301 is "Moved Permanently" and 308 is "Permanent Redirect", and that both indicate the target resource has been assigned a new permanent URI.
    1.00weight 0.17

    met, backed by verified evidence E1, E2. “Both 301 (Moved Permanently) and 308 (Permanent Redirect) indicate that a resource has been permanently moved to a new URI.”

  • passStates that a client following a 308 must not change the request method: a POST is repeated as a POST, with its body.
    1.00weight 0.25

    met, backed by verified evidence E8. “preserves the request method and body exactly as they were in the original request”

  • passStates that when following a 301 a user agent MAY change the request method from POST to GET (for historical reasons), which is the behaviour 308 exists to rule out.
    1.00weight 0.25

    met, backed by verified evidence E3. “For historical reasons, a user agent MAY change the request method from POST to GET for the subsequent request.”

  • passStates that both 301 and 308 responses are heuristically cacheable, i.e. a cache may reuse them by default unless the method definition or explicit cache controls say otherwise.
    1.00weight 0.17

    met, backed by verified evidence E5, E6, E7. “Both codes are now described as "heuristically cacheable" in RFC 9110, meaning they can be reused by a cache even without explicit freshness information”

  • partialStates that both codes are currently specified in RFC 9110 (HTTP Semantics), and that 308 was originally defined in RFC 7538, which RFC 9110 obsoletes.
    0.13weight 0.17

    partial, but no evidence entry supports it. “HTTP Status Code 301** is currently specified in RFC 9110 (HTTP Semantics), which supersedes the earlier RFC 7231”

Penalties

No penalties were applied.

Scorer metadata

corpus
{"version":2,"snapshot":"2026-10-01","hash":"25fbed79c4f7f9e1b850436e0e4872f8e25dd80142f3177231c456f21817b817","documents":8}
opened documents
["rfc7538","rfc7231","rfc9110","mdn-status-301","mdn-status-308","rfc9111"]
opened by role
{"superseded":["rfc7538","rfc7231"],"primary":["rfc9110"],"secondary":["mdn-status-301","mdn-status-308","rfc9111"]}
displayed share
{"mdn-status-308":1,"mdn-status-301":1,"rfc7538":0.782,"rfc9110":0.031,"rfc7231":0.0647,"mdn-redirections":0.0414,"rfc9111":0.0972}
cited count
4
verified count
4
hallucinated count
0
citation integrity
1
hallucinated urls
[]
evidence block
true
evidence block repaired
false
evidence count
10
verified quote count
8
verified quote rate
0.8 (80%)
evidence
[{"url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231.html","claim":"301 indicates the target resource has been assigned a new permanent URI","quote":"The 301 (Moved Permanently) status code indicates that the target resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource ought to use one of the enclosed URIs.","verified":true,"document":"rfc7231"},{"url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7538.html","claim":"308 indicates the target resource has been assigned a new permanent URI","quote":"The 308 (Permanent Redirect) status code indicates that the target resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource ought to use one of the enclosed URIs.","verified":true,"document":"rfc7538"},{"url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231.html","claim":"301 allows clients to change the request method from POST to GET","quote":"For historical reasons, a user agent MAY change the request method from POST to GET for the subsequent request.","verified":true,"document":"rfc7231"},{"url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7538.html","claim":"308 does not allow changing the request method from POST to GET","quote":"This status code is similar to 301 (Moved Permanently), except that it does not allow changing the request method from POST to GET.","verified":false,"document":"rfc7538","failure":"the quote does not occur in the page"},{"url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231.html","claim":"301 is cacheable by default","quote":"A 301 response is cacheable by default; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see Section 4.2.2 of [RFC7234]).","verified":true,"document":"rfc7231"},{"url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7538.html","claim":"308 is cacheable by default","quote":"A 308 response is cacheable by default; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see [RFC7234], Section 4.2.2).","verified":true,"document":"rfc7538"},{"url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9111.html","claim":"Heuristically cacheable is the current term for what was previously called cacheable by default","quote":"Note that in previous specifications, heuristically cacheable response status codes were called \"cacheable by default\".","verified":true,"document":"rfc9111"},{"url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html","claim":"308 was created as the permanent variant of 307 to preserve request methods","quote":"307 (Temporary Redirect) and 308 (Permanent Redirect) [RFC7538] were later added to unambiguously indicate method-preserving redirects, and status codes 301 and 302 have been adjusted to allow a POST request to be redirected as GET.","verified":true,"document":"rfc9110"},{"url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7538.html","claim":"301 is specified in RFC 7231 and RFC 9110","quote":"This specification does not define a permanent variant of status code 307; this specification adds the status code 308, defining this missing variant (Section 3).","verified":false,"document":"rfc7538","failure":"the quote does not occur in the page"},{"url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7538.html","claim":"308 is specified in RFC 7538 and RFC 9110","quote":"This document specifies the additional Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) status code 308 (Permanent Redirect).","verified":true,"document":"rfc7538"}]
judge unverified quotes
0
judge verdicts
[{"names":{"status":"met","support":["E1","E2"]},"method-preserved-308":{"status":"met","support":["E4","E8"]},"method-change-301":{"status":"met","support":["E3"]},"cacheable":{"status":"met","support":["E5","E6","E7"]},"specifications":{"status":"partial","support":[]}},{"names":{"status":"met","support":["E1","E2"]},"method-preserved-308":{"status":"met","support":["E4","E8"]},"method-change-301":{"status":"met","support":["E3","E4"]},"cacheable":{"status":"met","support":["E5","E6","E7"]},"specifications":{"status":"partial","support":["E8"]}},{"names":{"status":"met","support":["E1","E2"]},"method-preserved-308":{"status":"met","support":["E4","E8"]},"method-change-301":{"status":"met","support":["E3","E4"]},"cacheable":{"status":"met","support":["E5","E6","E7"]},"specifications":{"status":"partial","support":[]}}]
judge failures
0
grounded weight share
0.8333333333333334 (83%)

Final answer

Based on my research of the authoritative specifications, I can now provide you with a comprehensive explanation of the differences between HTTP status codes 301 and 308.

HTTP Status Codes 301 vs 308: A Complete Comparison

What Each Status Code Means

Both 301 (Moved Permanently) and 308 (Permanent Redirect) indicate that a resource has been permanently moved to a new URI. According to RFC 7231, "The 301 (Moved Permanently) status code indicates that the target resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource ought to use one of the enclosed URIs." Similarly, RFC 7538 states that "The 308 (Permanent Redirect) status code indicates that the target resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource ought to use one of the enclosed URIs."

The critical difference between these codes lies in how clients should handle the request method and body when following the redirect.

Request Method and Body Handling

301 Moved Permanently permits clients to change the request method. RFC 7231 explicitly notes: "For historical reasons, a user agent MAY change the request method from POST to GET for the subsequent request." This flexibility means that when a client receives a 301 response to a POST request, it may convert that to a GET request when following the redirect. This is a historical artifact of how HTTP was implemented in early browsers.

308 Permanent Redirect, by contrast, does not allow such changes. RFC 7538 makes this clear: "This status code is similar to 301 (Moved Permanently), except that it does not allow changing the request method from POST to GET." The 308 status code was specifically created to provide a permanent redirect that preserves the request method and body exactly as they were in the original request. As RFC 9110 explains, "307 (Temporary Redirect) and 308 (Permanent Redirect) [RFC7538] were later added to unambiguously indicate method-preserving redirects."

Cacheability

Both status codes are cacheable, though the terminology differs between specifications. RFC 7231 and RFC 7538 state that 301 and 308 responses are "cacheable by default; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls." RFC 9111 (the current caching specification) clarifies this terminology: "Note that in previous specifications, heuristically cacheable response status codes were called 'cacheable by default'." Both codes are now described as "heuristically cacheable" in RFC 9110, meaning they can be reused by a cache even without explicit freshness information, though caches must still respect explicit cache control directives.

Official Specifications

HTTP Status Code 301 is currently specified in RFC 9110 (HTTP Semantics), which supersedes the earlier RFC 7231 (Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content). RFC 7231 originally defined 301.

HTTP Status Code 308 was introduced in RFC 7538 (The Hypertext Transfer Protocol Status Code 308 (Permanent Redirect)), published in April 2015. It is also now included in RFC 9110. RFC 7538 was created specifically to fill a gap: RFC 7231 noted in its discussion of 307 that "This specification defines no equivalent counterpart for 301 (Moved Permanently)," and RFC 7538 was written to provide exactly that—a permanent redirect that preserves request methods, parallel to how 307 (Temporary Redirect) preserves them.

The key reason 308 was created is illustrated in RFC 7538's classification table, which shows that 301 "allows changing the request method from POST to GET" while 307 "does not allow changing the request method from POST to GET," but there was no permanent variant of 307. The 308 status code completed this matrix.


{"evidence": [{"claim": "301 indicates the target resource has been assigned a new permanent URI", "quote": "The 301 (Moved Permanently) status code indicates that the target resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource ought to use one of the enclosed URIs.", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231.html"}, {"claim": "308 indicates the target resource has been assigned a new permanent URI", "quote": "The 308 (Permanent Redirect) status code indicates that the target resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource ought to use one of the enclosed URIs.", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7538.html"}, {"claim": "301 allows clients to change the request method from POST to GET", "quote": "For historical reasons, a user agent MAY change the request method from POST to GET for the subsequent request.", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231.html"}, {"claim": "308 does not allow changing the request method from POST to GET", "quote": "This status code is similar to 301 (Moved Permanently), except that it does not allow changing the request method from POST to GET.", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7538.html"}, {"claim": "301 is cacheable by default", "quote": "A 301 response is cacheable by default; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see Section 4.2.2 of [RFC7234]).", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231.html"}, {"claim": "308 is cacheable by default", "quote": "A 308 response is cacheable by default; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see [RFC7234], Section 4.2.2).", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7538.html"}, {"claim": "Heuristically cacheable is the current term for what was previously called cacheable by default", "quote": "Note that in previous specifications, heuristically cacheable response status codes were called \"cacheable by default\".", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9111.html"}, {"claim": "308 was created as the permanent variant of 307 to preserve request methods", "quote": "307 (Temporary Redirect) and 308 (Permanent Redirect) [RFC7538] were later added to unambiguously indicate method-preserving redirects, and status codes 301 and 302 have been adjusted to allow a POST request to be redirected as GET.", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"}, {"claim": "301 is specified in RFC 7231 and RFC 9110", "quote": "This specification does not define a permanent variant of status code 307; this specification adds the status code 308, defining this missing variant (Section 3).", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7538.html"}, {"claim": "308 is specified in RFC 7538 and RFC 9110", "quote": "This document specifies the additional Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) status code 308 (Permanent Redirect).", "url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7538.html"}]}

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.