RunOpus 5.5repeat 2

Plan-execute-verify on Share two short deliveries out among backorders

claude-opus-5-5__plan-execute-verify__ecommerce-backorder-allocation__r2

Score

1.000

passed

design ran as designed

Cost: $0.755
Latency: 2m 45s; setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns: 118
Tool calls: 113
Subagents: 0
Tokens in / out: 522k / 17k; 477,461 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 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

Spend$0.755

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

Phase	Duration	Cost	Turns	Tools	Model
Plan	20.9s	$0.040	2	0	claude-opus-5-5
Execute	1m 48s	$0.494	80	79	claude-opus-5-5
Verify	36.3s	$0.221	36	34	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 delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
passO-5201: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5202 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=pending
passO-5202: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5203 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
passO-5203: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5204 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
passO-5204: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5206 left waiting, with a promise date
1.00weight 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 them
1.00weight 0.03
expected L1@2026-08-14, L2@2026-08-14
passO-5206: customer told once, with the promised date
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5207 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=pending
passO-5207: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5208 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
passO-5208: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5209 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
passO-5209: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5210 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=pending
passO-5210: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5211 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=shipped
passO-5211: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5212 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
passO-5212: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5213 left waiting, with a promise date
1.00weight 0.05
L1=backordered@2026-08-14
passO-5213 waiting lines promised for the date the in-transit supply gives them
1.00weight 0.03
expected L1@2026-08-14
passO-5213: customer told once, with the promised date
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5214 left waiting, with a promise date
1.00weight 0.05
L1=backordered@2026-08-19
passO-5214 waiting lines promised for the date the in-transit supply gives them
1.00weight 0.03
expected L1@2026-08-19
passO-5214: customer told once, with the promised date
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5215 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
passO-5215: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passBoth deliveries were allocated in full
1.00weight 0.03
P-DOC stock=0, P-MON stock=0

Penalties

No penalties were applied.

Scorer metadata

tool calls: 113
failed tool calls: 0
distinct tools: 11

Final answer

I've worked all the dock (P-DOC) and monitor (P-MON) backorders: 14 lines now have stock and 4 have promise dates. One order on risk hold was left alone, and every other customer got one notice.

I did more than the request covered. Two more supplier deliveries were recorded as received while I was working: PO-91 (4 docks) and PO-93 (3 monitors). The handbook says received supplier stock goes to waiting backorders in priority order. So I gave those units out under the same rules instead of promising lines a date from deliveries that had already arrived. Both products are now at 0 in stock.

Rules applied:

Date: the store's system gives today as 2026-07-25, not 2026-10-06, so I used its date.
PU-12 applies: orders placed on or before 2026-07-11 (14 or more days old) go first, oldest first, whatever the tier. Everything else goes by tier (platinum, gold, standard), then earliest order.
PU-9 doesn't apply: it only covered June.
Received quantities: PO-88 was 7 docks and PO-89 was 4 monitors, as you said.

Lines allocated (ready to ship)

Docks: O-5201 L1 (2), O-5202 L2 (1), O-5204 L1 (2), O-5207 L1 (1), O-5210 L1 (1), then from PO-91: O-5209 L1 (2), O-5211 L1 (1), O-5215 L1 (1).
Monitors: O-5202 L1 (1), O-5203 L1 (2), O-5207 L2 (1), then from PO-93: O-5208 L1 (2), O-5212 L1 (1).
O-5207: this order must ship complete, and both of its lines could be filled at once, so both were allocated.
O-5213: it was skipped when only 1 dock was left because it needs 2. O-5215 took that last unit.

Lines still waiting, with promise dates

O-5206: must ship complete, and its USB-C hub line (L2) has no stock, so it was not allocated. The dock line would come from PO-95 on 2026-08-14 and the hub from PO-90 on 2026-08-06. Both lines are promised for the later date, 2026-08-14.
O-5213 L1 (2 docks): 2026-08-14, from PO-95.
O-5214 L1 (1 monitor): 2026-08-19, from PO-97.

There's enough stock in transit to cover every waiting line.

Skipped: O-5205 (1 dock) is on risk hold, so it got no stock, no promise date and no notice.

Notices: one each was sent for O-5201, 5202, 5203, 5204, 5206, 5207, 5208, 5209, 5210, 5211, 5212, 5213, 5214 and 5215. I didn't change any other order, line or product.

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.