RunOpus 5.5repeat 1
Orchestrator-workers on Share two short deliveries out among backorders
claude-opus-5-5__orchestrator-workers__ecommerce-backorder-allocation__r1
Score
1.000
- Cost
- $0.574
- Latency
- 2m 10s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 84
- Tool calls
- 80
- Subagents
- 1
- Tokens in / out
- 388k / 14k
- 355,425 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.
- 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
Drawn from the phase records: timing and cost per call, no tool calls or messages.
| Phase | Duration | Cost | Turns | Tools | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decompose | 8.5s | $0.034 | 2 | 0 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Worker 1: all | 1m 39s | $0.462 | 81 | 80 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Synthesize | 23.4s | $0.078 | 1 | 0 | claude-opus-5-5 |
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 orchestrator-workers --tasks ecommerce-backorder-allocation --models claude-opus-5-5 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passO-5201 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
- passO-5201: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5202 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=pending
- passO-5202: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5203 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
- passO-5203: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5204 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
- passO-5204: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5206 left waiting, with a promise date1.00weight 0.05
L1=backordered@2026-08-14 L2=backordered@2026-08-14 L3=pending
- passO-5206 waiting lines promised for the date the in-transit supply gives them1.00weight 0.03
expected L1@2026-08-14, L2@2026-08-14
- passO-5206: customer told once, with the promised date1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5207 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=pending
- passO-5207: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5208 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
- passO-5208: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5209 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
- passO-5209: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5210 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=pending
- passO-5210: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5211 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=shipped
- passO-5211: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5212 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
- passO-5212: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5213 left waiting, with a promise date1.00weight 0.05
L1=backordered@2026-08-14
- passO-5213 waiting lines promised for the date the in-transit supply gives them1.00weight 0.03
expected L1@2026-08-14
- passO-5213: customer told once, with the promised date1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5214 left waiting, with a promise date1.00weight 0.05
L1=backordered@2026-08-19
- passO-5214 waiting lines promised for the date the in-transit supply gives them1.00weight 0.03
expected L1@2026-08-19
- passO-5214: customer told once, with the promised date1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5215 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
- passO-5215: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passBoth deliveries were allocated in full1.00weight 0.03
P-DOC stock=0, P-MON stock=0
Penalties
No penalties were applied.
Scorer metadata
- tool calls
- 80
- failed tool calls
- 0
- distinct tools
- 10
Final answer
Backorders worked for laptop docks (P-DOC) and monitors (P-MON)
The backorders for both products have been worked. Eleven orders received stock, three are still waiting with promise dates, and the customers on all fourteen of those orders were notified. One order was skipped because it is on risk hold. This summary comes from a single worker's report, and I could not check it against the system. Two points need your review.
1. More stock was allocated than you asked for. PO-91 (4 docks) and PO-93 (3 monitors) were marked received while the work was in progress. The worker allocated them together with PO-88 and PO-89, for a total of 11 docks and 7 monitors. You named only PO-88 and PO-89, and the handbook says to change only what the request covers. The worker reported that doing it in stages gave the same result as doing it all at once. Even so, the allocations below include stock you did not authorise. Please confirm you are happy with that.
2. The dates disagree, and the date affects priority. The store system says 2026-07-25, but the environment date is 2026-10-05. The worker used the store date.
- Under policy update PU-12, orders placed 14 or more days ago jump the queue, oldest first. With the store date, the cutoff is 07-11.
- If 10-05 were the correct date, every July order would count as aged. Priority would then be strictly oldest first, which could change who received stock.
- The store date looks more likely to be right, since otherwise "this morning's" receipts and promise dates in August would make no sense. But I can't confirm it.
Priority order used: aged orders (PU-12) first, then platinum, gold and standard customers, earliest order first within each tier. PU-9, which counted gold as platinum, applied only in June and was not used.
Allocated and ready to ship (dock and monitor stock are now both at 0):
| Order | Line(s) | Why it got stock |
|---|---|---|
| O-5201 | L1: 2 docks | Aged, placed 07-03 |
| O-5202 | L1: 1 monitor, L2: 1 dock | Aged, placed 07-05 |
| O-5203 | L1: 2 monitors | Aged, placed 07-08 |
| O-5204 | L1: 2 docks | Aged, placed 07-10 |
| O-5207 | L1: 1 dock, L2: 1 monitor | Platinum; must ship complete, and both lines could be filled |
| O-5208 | L1: 2 monitors | Gold |
| O-5209 | L1: 2 docks | Gold |
| O-5210 | L1: 1 dock | Gold |
| O-5211 | L1: 1 dock | Standard, placed 07-12 |
| O-5212 | L1: 1 monitor | Standard, placed 07-15 |
| O-5215 | L1: 1 dock | Standard; O-5213 needed 2 and only 1 was left, so the unit went to the next order |
Still waiting, with promise dates:
- O-5206 (platinum, must ship complete): it also needs a USB-C hub, and none are in stock. Both lines are promised for 2026-08-14. That is the later of the dock's date (PO-95, due 08-14) and the hub's date (PO-90, due 08-06).
- O-5213, L1 (2 docks): promised 2026-08-14 (PO-95).
- O-5214, L1 (1 monitor): promised 2026-08-19 (PO-97).
Not handled: O-5205 (1 dock, placed 07-11) is on risk hold. It got no allocation, no promise date and no notice, as policy requires. It remains backordered and will need working once the hold is lifted.
Customer notices: fourteen were sent (N-1 to N-14), one for each allocated or waiting order. Each says either that the items are ready to ship or gives the promise date.
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.