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
- 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?
- 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 | 19.8s | $0.036 | 2 | 0 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Execute | 55.9s | $0.506 | 27 | 26 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Verify | 24.9s | $0.174 | 14 | 12 | 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 research-header-fields --models claude-opus-5-5 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passheader field Age1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9111
- passheader field Cache-Control1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9111
- passheader field Expires1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9111
- passheader field Last-Modified1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9110
- passheader field ETag1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9110
- passheader field Location1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9110
- passheader field Retry-After1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9110
- passheader field Vary1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9110
- passheader field Strict-Transport-Security1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc6797
- passheader field Link1.00weight 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":
- the RFC Editor status pages (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6797 and the matching pages for 8288, 9110 and 9111)
- the IANA field name registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-fields/http-fields.xhtml)
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.