ScaffoldBench

RunOpus 5.5repeat 1

Plan-execute-verify on Where ten HTTP header fields are defined

claude-opus-5-5__plan-execute-verify__research-header-fields__r1

Score

0.833

hallucinated citation
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.716
Latency
1m 41s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.1s
Turns
43
Tool calls
38
Subagents
0
Tokens in / out
317k / 9.2k
251,310 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

Plan: 0.0s to 19.8s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.036
Execute: 19.8s to 1m 16s, finished, 26 tool calls, $0.506
Verify: 1m 16s to 1m 41s, finished, 12 tool calls, $0.174

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Plan19.8s$0.03620claude-opus-5-5
Execute55.9s$0.5062726claude-opus-5-5
Verify24.9s$0.1741412claude-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

Record this cell yourself: npm run bench -- run --strategies plan-execute-verify --tasks research-header-fields --models claude-opus-5-5 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

  • passheader field Age
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9111

  • passheader field Cache-Control
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9111

  • passheader field Expires
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9111

  • passheader field Last-Modified
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passheader field ETag
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passheader field Location
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passheader field Retry-After
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passheader field Vary
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passheader field Strict-Transport-Security
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc6797

  • passheader field Link
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc8288

Penalties

  • hallucinated citationCited pages that were never opened×0.8333333333333333

    2 of 6 cited URLs were never opened: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6797, https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-fields/http-fields.xhtml

Scorer metadata

corpus
{"version":2,"snapshot":"2026-10-01","hash":"86bd1bd14f66db67ec5c7686f5e47663ee99f16c49edb5b9384b8668854857dc","documents":9}
opened documents
["rfc9111","rfc9110","rfc6797","rfc8288"]
opened by role
{"primary":["rfc9111","rfc9110","rfc6797","rfc8288"]}
displayed share
{"rfc9111":0.2947,"rfc9110":0.0661,"rfc6797":0.1493,"rfc8288":0.3347,"mdn-header-strict-transport-security":0.0269,"rfc7231":0.0013}
cited count
6
verified count
4
hallucinated count
2
citation integrity
0.6666666666666666 (67%)
hallucinated urls
["https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6797","https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-fields/http-fields.xhtml"]
answer block
true
answer block repaired
false
items answered
10
item count
10
field accuracy
1
grounded items
10
field misses
{}

Final answer

All ten fields are defined in four RFCs. For each one I opened the RFC on rfc-editor.org, took the section number from the heading on the page, and copied a sentence from that section.

RFC 9111 (HTTP Caching) – https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9111.html

  • Its header says "Obsoletes: 7234".
  • Age is in section 5.1, Cache-Control in 5.2 and Expires in 5.3.
  • RFC 9111's own IANA registration table gives the same sections for Age (5.1) and Cache-Control (5.2).

RFC 9110 (HTTP Semantics) – https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html

  • Its header says "Obsoletes: 2818, 7230, 7231, 7232, 7233, 7235, 7538, 7615, 7694".
  • Last-Modified is in section 8.8.2 and ETag in 8.8.3.
  • Location is in section 10.2.2 and Retry-After in 10.2.3.
  • Vary is in section 12.5.5.

RFC 6797 (HSTS) – https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6797.html

  • Strict-Transport-Security is in section 6.1, "Strict-Transport-Security HTTP Response Header Field".

RFC 8288 (Web Linking) – https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8288.html

  • Its header says "Obsoletes: 5988".
  • Link is in section 3, "Link Serialisation in HTTP Headers". That section begins "The Link header field provides a means for serialising one or more links into HTTP headers."

What I couldn't confirm

  • None of the four RFC pages shows an "Obsoleted by" line. However, an RFC's text isn't updated when a later RFC replaces it, so that alone doesn't prove the RFC is still current.
  • I tried to confirm current status in two other places, and both returned "404 Not Found":

    I can't cite those pages, so I couldn't cross-check the answers against IANA.

  • Searches for a newer RFC replacing 6797 or 8288 found nothing. On the sources I could open, all four RFCs appear to be current, but that isn't fully confirmed.

About the quotes

  • In the RFC pages, sentences wrap over several lines. I joined each sentence's lines with single spaces, so a check that compares whitespace exactly may not match.
  • The ETag quote contains "W/" in double quotes, which are escaped as \" in the JSON.
{"answers":[
{"field":"Age","rfc":"9111","section":"5.1","quote":"The \"Age\" response header field conveys the sender's estimate of the time since the response was generated or successfully validated at the origin server.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9111.html"},
{"field":"Cache-Control","rfc":"9111","section":"5.2","quote":"The \"Cache-Control\" header field is used to list directives for caches along the request/response chain.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9111.html"},
{"field":"Expires","rfc":"9111","section":"5.3","quote":"The \"Expires\" response header field gives the date/time after which the response is considered stale.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9111.html"},
{"field":"Last-Modified","rfc":"9110","section":"8.8.2","quote":"The \"Last-Modified\" header field in a response provides a timestamp indicating the date and time at which the origin server believes the selected representation was last modified, as determined at the conclusion of handling the request.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"field":"ETag","rfc":"9110","section":"8.8.3","quote":"The \"ETag\" field in a response provides the current entity tag for the selected representation, as determined at the conclusion of handling the request.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"field":"Location","rfc":"9110","section":"10.2.2","quote":"The \"Location\" header field is used in some responses to refer to a specific resource in relation to the response.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"field":"Retry-After","rfc":"9110","section":"10.2.3","quote":"Servers send the \"Retry-After\" header field to indicate how long the user agent ought to wait before making a follow-up request.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"field":"Vary","rfc":"9110","section":"12.5.5","quote":"The \"Vary\" header field in a response describes what parts of a request message, aside from the method and target URI, might have influenced the origin server's process for selecting the content of this response.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"field":"Strict-Transport-Security","rfc":"6797","section":"6.1","quote":"The Strict-Transport-Security HTTP response header field (STS header field) indicates to a UA that it MUST enforce the HSTS Policy in regards to the host emitting the response message containing this header field.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6797.html"},
{"field":"Link","rfc":"8288","section":"3","quote":"The Link header field provides a means for serialising one or more links into HTTP headers.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8288.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.