RunOpus 5.5repeat 1
Orchestrator-workers on NIST SP 800-63B password rules, current revision
claude-opus-5-5__orchestrator-workers__research-nist-password-rules__r1
Score
0.750
- Cost
- $0.464
- Latency
- 56.5s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 17
- Tool calls
- 11
- Subagents
- 3
- Tokens in / out
- 93k / 9.2k
- 48,352 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 | 19.0s | $0.055 | 2 | 0 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Worker 1: length-composition | 18.7s | $0.106 | 5 | 4 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Worker 2: hints-kba-blocklist | 20.0s | $0.106 | 5 | 4 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Worker 3: storage-salt-hash | 16.3s | $0.100 | 4 | 3 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Synthesize | 17.5s | $0.097 | 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 research-nist-password-rules --models claude-opus-5-5 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passtopic single-factor-minimum-length: minimum length of a password used as the only authentication factor (characters)1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in nist-sp800-63b-4
- passtopic maximum-length: the maximum password length verifiers permit (characters)1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in nist-sp800-63b-4
- passtopic composition-rules: imposing composition rules, such as requiring a mix of character types1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in nist-sp800-63b-4
- passtopic periodic-change: requiring subscribers to change their passwords periodically1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in nist-sp800-63b-4
- passtopic password-hints: letting subscribers store a password hint that unauthenticated claimants can see1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in nist-sp800-63b-4
- passtopic security-questions: prompting for knowledge-based authentication or security questions when a password is chosen1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in nist-sp800-63b-4
- passtopic blocklist: checking a new password against a blocklist of commonly used, expected or compromised passwords1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in nist-sp800-63b-4
- passtopic password-managers: allowing password managers and autofill1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in nist-sp800-63b-4
- passtopic salt-length: the length of the salt used when storing passwords (bits)1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in nist-sp800-63b-4
- passtopic hashing-scheme: using an approved password hashing scheme from the latest revision of SP 800-1321.00weight 0.10
quote verified in nist-sp800-63b-4
Penalties
- hallucinated citationCited pages that were never opened×0.75
1 of 2 cited URLs were never opened: https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/63/b/4/final
Scorer metadata
- corpus
- {"version":2,"snapshot":"2026-10-01","hash":"0786c624b04f6c85e2ed8a55d4acedd99e4cf2c18632a0ebc22ee969fb3e2263","documents":4}
- opened documents
- ["nist-sp800-63b-4"]
- opened by role
- {"primary":["nist-sp800-63b-4"]}
- displayed share
- {"nist-sp800-63b-4":0.0864}
- cited count
- 2
- verified count
- 1
- hallucinated count
- 1
- citation integrity
- 0.5 (50%)
- hallucinated urls
- ["https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/63/b/4/final"]
- answer block
- true
- answer block repaired
- false
- items answered
- 10
- item count
- 10
- field accuracy
- 1
- grounded items
- 10
- field misses
- {}
Final answer
NIST SP 800-63B-4: password requirements for verifiers and CSPs
All three workers confirmed that the current revision is NIST SP 800-63B-4. They opened https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html, which is titled "NIST SP 800-63B-4, Digital Identity Guidelines: Authentication and Authenticator Management". The page is dated 26 Aug 2025 and says it "supersedes NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-63B". Every requirement below comes from section 3.1.1.2, "Password Verifiers", on that page.
| Topic | Keyword | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum length, password as the only factor | SHALL | 15 characters |
| Maximum length | SHOULD | permit at least 64 characters |
| Composition rules | SHALL NOT | none |
| Periodic change | SHALL NOT | none |
| Password hints | SHALL NOT | none |
| Security questions / knowledge-based authentication | SHALL NOT | none |
| Blocklist check | SHALL | none |
| Password managers and autofill | SHALL (allow) | none |
| Salt length | SHALL | at least 32 bits |
| Approved SP 800-132 hashing scheme | SHOULD | none |
Related points from the same section
- Shorter passwords: a password used only within multi-factor authentication MAY be shorter than 15 characters. It SHALL still be at least 8 characters.
- Forced changes: verifiers SHALL force a password change if there is evidence the authenticator has been compromised.
- Hashing: salting and hashing passwords with a suitable scheme is a SHALL. Using an approved scheme from SP 800-132 is only a SHOULD.
Gaps
- The workers did not open the 2017 Revision 3, so the two revisions were not compared.
- The CSRC page https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/63/b/4/final returned a 404. Every finding therefore rests on the single pages.nist.gov source.
- The workers found no disagreement among the sources they opened.
{"answers":[
{"topic":"single-factor-minimum-length","keyword":"SHALL","value":"15","quote":"Verifiers and CSPs SHALL require passwords that are used as a single-factor authentication mechanism to be a minimum of 15 characters in length.","url":"https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html"},
{"topic":"maximum-length","keyword":"SHOULD","value":"64","quote":"Verifiers and CSPs SHOULD permit a maximum password length of at least 64 characters.","url":"https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html"},
{"topic":"composition-rules","keyword":"SHALL NOT","value":null,"quote":"Verifiers and CSPs SHALL NOT impose other composition rules (e.g., requiring mixtures of different character types) for passwords.","url":"https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html"},
{"topic":"periodic-change","keyword":"SHALL NOT","value":null,"quote":"Verifiers and CSPs SHALL NOT require subscribers to change passwords periodically.","url":"https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html"},
{"topic":"password-hints","keyword":"SHALL NOT","value":null,"quote":"Verifiers and CSPs SHALL NOT permit the subscriber to store a hint (e.g., a reminder of how the password was created) that is accessible to an unauthenticated claimant.","url":"https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html"},
{"topic":"security-questions","keyword":"SHALL NOT","value":null,"quote":"Verifiers and CSPs SHALL NOT prompt subscribers to use knowledge-based authentication (KBA) (e.g., “What was the name of your first pet?”) or security questions when choosing passwords.","url":"https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html"},
{"topic":"blocklist","keyword":"SHALL","value":null,"quote":"When processing a request to establish or change a password, verifiers SHALL compare the prospective secret against a blocklist that contains known commonly used, expected, or compromised passwords.","url":"https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html"},
{"topic":"password-managers","keyword":"SHALL","value":null,"quote":"Verifiers SHALL allow the use of password managers and autofill functionality.","url":"https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html"},
{"topic":"salt-length","keyword":"SHALL","value":"32","quote":"The salt SHALL be at least 32 bits in length and chosen to minimize salt value collisions among stored hashes (i.e., to prevent multiple subscriber accounts from having the same hashed password).","url":"https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html"},
{"topic":"hashing-scheme","keyword":"SHOULD","value":null,"quote":"An approved password hashing scheme published in the latest revision of [SP800-132] or updated NIST guidelines on password hashing schemes SHOULD be used.","url":"https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.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.