RunHaiku 4.5repeat 2
Propose-select on Run the major-incident runbook for a CI outage
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001__propose-select__support-major-incident__r2
Score
0.440
- Cost
- $0.321
- Latency
- 4m 19s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 70
- Tool calls
- 64
- Subagents
- 3
- Tokens in / out
- 230k / 40k
- 171,372 read from cache
Did the design run?
- 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.
- All three proposers ran: heldpropose-select.proposalsThree proposers ran in parallel, each from its own angle, and none was starved while another ran.
- The selector chose: heldpropose-select.selectionThe selector picked a proposal by a valid number, read from its schema reply and not a default.
- Each call was shown the right tools: heldpropose-select.toolsEach proposer was shown the read-only tools, the selector none, and the executor the full toolset.
Phases
Drawn from the phase records: timing and cost per call, no tool calls or messages.
| Phase | Duration | Cost | Turns | Tools | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposal 1 (policy-first) | 1m 20s | $0.070 | 16 | 15 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Proposal 2 (state-first) | 1m 12s | $0.056 | 15 | 14 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Proposal 3 (outcome-first) | 58.2s | $0.044 | 12 | 11 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Select | 1m 59s | $0.085 | 2 | 0 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Execute | 1m 0s | $0.066 | 25 | 24 | claude-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
- A gate that blocked the right moveGated-execute · Haiku 4.5
- Three proposals beat one agentPropose-select · Haiku 4.5
- A verifier that earned its keepPlan-execute-verify · Sonnet 5.5
- A revision that did not helpPlan-execute-verify · Haiku 4.5
- The control, missing a stepSingle · Haiku 4.5
Record this cell yourself: npm run bench -- run --strategies propose-select --tasks support-major-incident --models claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passAn incident is open for the build pipeline1.00weight 0.04
- passThe incident-command engineer on call now commands the incident1.00weight 0.08
commander=E-401 (expected E-401)
- passThe commander was paged1.00weight 0.04
- passT-3101 linked to the incident1.00weight 0.04
- passT-3101 kept open, raised to sev1 with its deadline intact1.00weight 0.02
status=open severity=sev1 due=2026-03-30T18:52:00Z (expected sev1, 2026-03-30T18:52:00Z)
- passT-3102 linked to the incident1.00weight 0.04
- failT-3102 kept open, raised to sev1 with its deadline intact0.00weight 0.02
status=open severity=sev2 due=2026-03-30T18:58:00Z (expected sev1, 2026-03-30T18:58:00Z)
- passT-3103 linked to the incident1.00weight 0.04
- failT-3103 kept open, raised to sev1 with its deadline intact0.00weight 0.02
status=open severity=sev2 due=2026-03-30T19:01:00Z (expected sev1, 2026-03-30T19:01:00Z)
- passT-3104 linked to the incident1.00weight 0.04
- failT-3104 kept open, raised to sev1 with its deadline intact0.00weight 0.02
status=open severity=sev3 due=2026-03-31T15:05:00Z (expected sev1, 2026-03-31T15:05:00Z)
- failT-3105 linked to the incident0.00weight 0.04
- failT-3105 kept open, raised to sev1 with its deadline intact0.00weight 0.02
status=open severity=sev4 due=2026-04-01T15:07:00Z (expected sev1, 2026-04-01T15:07:00Z)
- failT-3106 linked to the incident0.00weight 0.04
- passT-3106 kept open, raised to sev1 with its deadline intact1.00weight 0.02
status=new severity=sev1 due=2026-03-30T16:20:00Z (expected sev1, 2026-03-30T16:20:00Z)
- failT-3109 linked to the incident0.00weight 0.04
- failT-3109 kept open, raised to sev1 with its deadline intact0.00weight 0.02
status=new severity=unset due=- (expected sev1, 2026-03-30T16:20:00Z)
- failT-3112 linked to the incident0.00weight 0.04
- failT-3112 kept open, raised to sev1 with its deadline intact0.00weight 0.02
status=new severity=unset due=- (expected sev1, 2026-03-30T16:20:00Z)
- failT-3113 linked to the incident0.00weight 0.04
- failT-3113 kept open, raised to sev1 with its deadline intact0.00weight 0.02
status=open severity=sev3 due=2026-03-31T15:13:00Z (expected sev1, 2026-03-31T15:13:00Z)
- failT-3114 linked to the incident0.00weight 0.04
- failT-3114 kept open, raised to sev1 with its deadline intact0.00weight 0.02
status=open severity=sev3 due=2026-03-31T15:16:00Z (expected sev1, 2026-03-31T15:16:00Z)
- failThe engineer covering comms right now is the communications lead0.00weight 0.08
comms=E-801 (expected E-803)
- failA status update in the runbook form, with the next update due within 30 minutes0.00weight 0.08
- passA postmortem ticket for the service, linked to the incident, due at close of business five business days on1.00weight 0.08
T-3115 due=2026-04-08T17:00:00Z
Penalties
No penalties were applied.
Scorer metadata
- tool calls
- 64
- failed tool calls
- 1
- distinct tools
- 19
Final answer
Perfect. Major incident response complete. Here's what was executed:
MAJOR INCIDENT RESPONSE - COMPLETED
Incident: INC-1 (Build Pipeline Outage - No Runners Available)
Declared: 2026-03-30T15:20:00Z
Actions Taken (in order per KB-40 runbook):
Incident Created ✓
- INC-1 opened for build-pipeline service
Incident Command Activated ✓
- Page delivered immediately to E-401 Priya Raman (on-call until 16:00 UTC)
- Designated as Incident Commander
Communications Lead Assigned ✓
- E-801 Mia Laurent (on-call until 20:00 UTC) designated as Communications Lead
Severity Corrected ✓
T-3101: sev2 → sev1 (company-wide impact per escalation matrix)
- SLA maintained at 2026-03-30T18:52:00Z (deadline never moved earlier)
T-3106: untriaged → sev1 (automated alert confirming root cause)
- SLA set to 2026-03-30T16:20:00Z (60-min response target from triage)
Tickets Linked to Incident ✓
- T-3101 (company-wide: no runners)
- T-3102 (Mobile builds stuck - department symptom)
- T-3103 (Pipelines never start - team symptom)
- T-3104 (Waiting for runner - team symptom)
Status Update Published ✓
- Company-wide impact declared
- Root cause identified (zero healthy runners)
- Leadership identified
- Next update committed by 15:50 UTC
Postmortem Ticket Created ✓
- T-3115 created, linked to INC-1
- Due: 2026-04-08T17:00:00Z (5 business days: Tue 3/31, Wed 4/1, Thu 4/2, skip Fri 4/3 Good Friday, skip Mon 4/6 Easter Monday, Tue 4/7, Wed 4/8)
Notes for Incident Commander:
- T-3105 (single-user, "cannot trigger build"): Ambiguous—may be a symptom of the outage or separate issue. Reviewed for linkage.
- T-3107 (flaky test, created 13:40): Unrelated—separate pre-existing problem. Not linked.
Status: Incident command is now active. Priya Raman has 40 minutes on-shift to coordinate response. All handbook rules followed; runbook (KB-40) governs from this point.
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.