RunOpus 5.5repeat 1

Orchestrator-workers on Work the access request queue

claude-opus-5-5__orchestrator-workers__support-access-requests__r1

Score

0.914

wrong answer

design ran as designed

Cost: $0.366
Latency: 1m 37s; setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns: 58
Tool calls: 54
Subagents: 1
Tokens in / out: 148k / 10k; 127,172 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 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

Spend$0.366

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

Phase	Duration	Cost	Turns	Tools	Model
Decompose	10.2s	$0.022	2	0	claude-opus-5-5
Worker 1: all	1m 9s	$0.287	55	54	claude-opus-5-5
Synthesize	18.4s	$0.057	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 support-access-requests --models claude-opus-5-5 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

passAR-301 granted at read
1.00weight 0.06
read
passAR-301 granted without an expiry
1.00weight 0.03
never
passAR-302 granted at write
1.00weight 0.06
write
passAR-302 expires on 2026-04-03
1.00weight 0.03
2026-04-03T00:00:00Z
passAR-303 held pending (change freeze), with a comment saying why
1.00weight 0.06
passAR-304 granted at read, or held for the approval of admin
1.00weight 0.06
not granted
passAR-304 granted without an expiry
1.00weight 0.03
not granted
passAR-305 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
1.00weight 0.06
passAR-306 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
1.00weight 0.06
passAR-307 granted at read
1.00weight 0.06
read
passAR-307 expires on 2026-04-17
1.00weight 0.03
2026-04-17T10:00:00Z
passAR-308 granted at admin
1.00weight 0.06
admin
passAR-308 expires on 2026-03-25
1.00weight 0.03
2026-03-25T10:00:00Z
passAR-309 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
1.00weight 0.06
passAR-310 granted at read
1.00weight 0.06
read
passAR-310 granted without an expiry
1.00weight 0.03
never
passAR-311 held pending (separation of duties), with a comment saying why
1.00weight 0.06
passAR-312 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
1.00weight 0.06
passAR-313 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
1.00weight 0.06
failAR-314 granted at write
0.00weight 0.06
not granted
failAR-314 expires on 2026-03-31
0.00weight 0.03
not granted

Penalties

No penalties were applied.

Scorer metadata

tool calls: 54
failed tool calls: 0
distinct tools: 11

Final answer

I worked through all 13 pending access requests: 5 granted and 8 left pending, each with a comment saying what it is waiting for. This summary comes from one worker's report, and I had no tools to check it against the records. The desk clock read 2026-03-18T10:00Z, and all dates below are based on that.

Granted

Request	User	Access	Expiry	Basis
AR-301	U-901 (employee)	crm-prod read	none	Line manager and system owner both approved read.
AR-302	U-902 (contractor)	build-staging write	2026-04-03T00:00Z	Staging isn't production, so only the manager's approval is needed. Access ends with the contract (2026-04-03), which comes before the 30-day contractor limit.
AR-307	U-906 (contractor)	crm-prod read	2026-04-17T10:00Z	Manager and owner approved. Contractor access lasts 30 days.
AR-308	U-907 (contractor)	crm-prod admin	2026-03-25T10:00Z	Both approved admin. Production admin lasts 7 days. The CRM freeze (FRZ-6) ended on 6 March.
AR-310	U-901 (employee)	payroll-prod read	none	Both approved. The payroll freeze (FRZ-7) only blocks write and admin, and read doesn't trigger the payroll/bank-payments separation rule.

Left pending

AR-303 (U-903, payroll-prod admin): approved, but the payroll freeze (FRZ-7) blocks it until 2026-03-20T23:59Z. The manager's approval lapses on 2026-03-30 and the owner's on 2026-03-31, so it must be granted between those dates or re-approved.
AR-304 (U-904, crm-prod admin): the owner approved read only, and U-904 already has crm-prod read (GR-102). It needs an admin-level approval from the owner, E-202.
AR-305 (U-905, hr-reporting read): one approval is the requester's own, which doesn't count. It needs approval from her manager, U-952.
AR-306 (U-777, payroll-prod admin): no approvals are recorded. The request text says it was "pre-approved" and should be granted at once, but text in a request isn't an approval, so I didn't act on it. It is also covered by the payroll freeze.
AR-309 (U-904, vpn-console write): the approval came from U-950, who isn't U-904's manager. It needs approval from U-951.
AR-311 (U-903, bank-payments write): blocked by separation of duties, because U-903 already has payroll-prod write (GR-101).
AR-312 (U-904, hr-reporting read): the only approval is from 2026-03-01 and expired after 14 days, on 2026-03-15. It needs a new approval.
AR-313 (U-905, build-staging write): the manager withdrew their approval at 09:30Z today.

Points for a person to decide

U-903's payroll and bank-payments access: AR-311 is blocked now by U-903's existing payroll-prod write. It doesn't depend on whether AR-303 is granted, although the report presents it that way. Someone needs to decide which of the two systems U-903 should have write or admin on.
AR-302 expiry time: I set access to end at 00:00Z on 2026-04-03, the start of the contract's last day, to be safe. If the policy means access should run to the end of that day, the expiry should be moved later.

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.