RunOpus 5.5repeat 1
Plan-execute-verify on Share two short deliveries out among backorders
claude-opus-5-5__plan-execute-verify__ecommerce-backorder-allocation__r1
Score
1.000
- Cost
- $0.757
- Latency
- 2m 38s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 120
- Tool calls
- 115
- Subagents
- 0
- Tokens in / out
- 550k / 16k
- 502,903 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 plan was a plan: heldplan-execute-verify.planThe planner’s reply was read through its schema and held at least one step.
- Every verdict was read: heldplan-execute-verify.verdictsEvery review round ended with a verdict read from the schema reply, not a default.
- The loop did what its verdicts said: heldplan-execute-verify.loopEvery verdict that called for a revision got one, and nothing was revised without such a verdict.
- Each call was shown the right tools: heldplan-execute-verify.toolsThe planner was shown no tools, the verifier the read-only ones, and the executor and reviser 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plan | 18.9s | $0.038 | 2 | 0 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Execute | 1m 36s | $0.471 | 81 | 80 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Verify | 43.2s | $0.248 | 37 | 35 | 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 plan-execute-verify --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
- 115
- failed tool calls
- 0
- distinct tools
- 12
Final answer
I've worked the laptop dock (P-DOC) and monitor (P-MON) backorders. 11 orders now have all their dock and monitor lines allocated, 3 orders are waiting with promise dates, and the order on risk hold was left alone. Each of the 14 customers I worked got one notice (N-1 to N-14).
Two things that differed from the plan
- Today's date: the plan said 2026-10-05, but the system reports 2026-07-25, so I used that. On that date, update PU-12 applies: orders placed 14 or more days ago (on or before 2026-07-11) go first, oldest first, whatever the customer's tier. PU-9 (gold ranks with platinum) only covered June, so I didn't use it.
- More stock arrived during the run: PO-91 (4 docks) and PO-93 (3 monitors) were received while I was working. I gave that stock out under the same priority rules rather than treating those POs as still on the way. In total that was 11 docks and 7 monitors, and both are now at 0 in stock.
Order of priority:
- Orders placed on or before 2026-07-11: O-5201, O-5202, O-5203, O-5204.
- Platinum: O-5206 (ship-complete), O-5207 (ship-complete).
- Gold: O-5208, O-5209, O-5210.
- Standard: O-5211, O-5212, O-5213, O-5214, O-5215.
Allocated (ready to ship)
| Order | Line | Quantity | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| O-5201 | L1 | 2 docks | |
| O-5202 | L1 | 1 monitor | |
| O-5202 | L2 | 1 dock | |
| O-5203 | L1 | 2 monitors | |
| O-5204 | L1 | 2 docks | |
| O-5207 | L1 | 1 dock | Ship-complete, both lines filled together |
| O-5207 | L2 | 1 monitor | |
| O-5208 | L1 | 2 monitors | Stock came from PO-93 |
| O-5209 | L1 | 2 docks | |
| O-5210 | L1 | 1 dock | |
| O-5211 | L1 | 1 dock | |
| O-5212 | L1 | 1 monitor | |
| O-5215 | L1 | 1 dock | Got the last dock; O-5213 needed 2 and couldn't be filled |
Still waiting, with promise dates
- O-5206 L1 (dock) and L2 (USB-C hub): 2026-08-14 for both. The order is ship-complete and there are no hubs in stock, so neither line could be allocated. The dock is covered by PO-95 (due 2026-08-14) and the hub by PO-90 (due 2026-08-06). Both lines get the later date.
- O-5213 L1 (2 docks): 2026-08-14, from PO-95.
- O-5214 L1 (1 monitor): 2026-08-19, from PO-97.
Every waiting line is covered by a purchase order still in transit.
Held: O-5205 (1 dock) is on risk hold. It got no allocation, no promise date and no notice.
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.