ScaffoldBench

RunOpus 5.5repeat 2

Plan-execute-verify on Twelve HTTP status codes, by the book

claude-opus-5-5__plan-execute-verify__research-status-codes__r2

Score

1.000

passed
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.765
Latency
2m 14s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.3s
Turns
38
Tool calls
30
Subagents
0
Tokens in / out
207k / 14k
137,257 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 17.9s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.040
Execute: 17.9s to 52.1s, finished, 7 tool calls, $0.218
Verify: 52.1s to 1m 24s, finished, 5 tool calls, $0.151
Revise (round 1): 1m 24s to 1m 54s, finished, 9 tool calls, $0.212
Verify revision 1: 1m 54s to 2m 14s, finished, 9 tool calls, $0.144

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Plan17.9s$0.04020claude-opus-5-5
Execute34.1s$0.21887claude-opus-5-5
Verify32.0s$0.15175claude-opus-5-5
Revise (round 1)30.3s$0.212109claude-opus-5-5
Verify revision 119.3s$0.144119claude-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-status-codes --models claude-opus-5-5 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

  • passstatus code 203
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 206
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 303
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 307
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 308
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 405
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 410
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 413
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 414
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 421
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 422
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 501
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

Penalties

No penalties were applied.

Scorer metadata

corpus
{"version":2,"snapshot":"2026-10-01","hash":"9841e181cc36236e3bc98c18c73e938cf003a35611d0f06c8d8da6ee7161ee1f","documents":6}
opened documents
["rfc9110"]
opened by role
{"primary":["rfc9110"]}
displayed share
{"rfc9111":0.0029,"rfc9110":0.0946,"mdn-status-codes":0.0181,"rfc7231":0.0013,"mdn-status-308":0.1405}
cited count
1
verified count
1
hallucinated count
0
citation integrity
1
hallucinated urls
[]
answer block
true
answer block repaired
false
items answered
12
item count
12
field accuracy
1
grounded items
12
field misses
{}

Final answer

The verifier was right. I replaced the 10 sentence fragments with complete sentences from each code's own section of RFC 9110. I checked every new quote against the text of https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html in this session, using find and reading the page at the matching offsets, and wrote them with single spaces.

Changed:

  • 203, 308, 405, 410, 414, 501: The full sentence is "A NNN response is heuristically cacheable; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see Section 4.2.2 of [CACHING])." A search for that sentence finds it in each of these codes' own sections.
  • 206: Section 15.3.7 has a slightly different version: "A 206 response is heuristically cacheable; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by explicit cache controls (see Section 4.2.2 of [CACHING])."
  • 307, 413, 422: I used the full first sentence of each code's definition.

Unchanged: The 303 and 421 quotes were already complete sentences. The reason phrases, section numbers, cacheability values and URL also stay the same, since the verifier confirmed them.

Why these values (RFC 9110, still the current HTTP Semantics specification): Section 15.1 lists 200, 203, 204, 206, 300, 301, 308, 404, 405, 410, 414 and 501 as heuristically cacheable and says "all other status codes are not heuristically cacheable." So 303, 307, 413, 421 and 422 are false. The current reason phrases for 413 and 422 are "Content Too Large" and "Unprocessable Content."

CodeReasonSectionHeuristically cacheable
203Non-Authoritative Information15.3.4yes
206Partial Content15.3.7yes
303See Other15.4.4no
307Temporary Redirect15.4.8no
308Permanent Redirect15.4.9yes
405Method Not Allowed15.5.6yes
410Gone15.5.11yes
413Content Too Large15.5.14no
414URI Too Long15.5.15yes
421Misdirected Request15.5.20no
422Unprocessable Content15.5.21no
501Not Implemented15.6.2yes

Source for every row: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html

{"answers":[
{"code":"203","reason":"Non-Authoritative Information","section":"15.3.4","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"A 203 response is heuristically cacheable; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see Section 4.2.2 of [CACHING]).","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"206","reason":"Partial Content","section":"15.3.7","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"A 206 response is heuristically cacheable; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by explicit cache controls (see Section 4.2.2 of [CACHING]).","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"303","reason":"See Other","section":"15.4.4","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"This status code is applicable to any HTTP method.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"307","reason":"Temporary Redirect","section":"15.4.8","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"The 307 (Temporary Redirect) status code indicates that the target resource resides temporarily under a different URI and the user agent MUST NOT change the request method if it performs an automatic redirection to that URI.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"308","reason":"Permanent Redirect","section":"15.4.9","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"A 308 response is heuristically cacheable; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see Section 4.2.2 of [CACHING]).","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"405","reason":"Method Not Allowed","section":"15.5.6","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"A 405 response is heuristically cacheable; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see Section 4.2.2 of [CACHING]).","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"410","reason":"Gone","section":"15.5.11","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"A 410 response is heuristically cacheable; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see Section 4.2.2 of [CACHING]).","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"413","reason":"Content Too Large","section":"15.5.14","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"The 413 (Content Too Large) status code indicates that the server is refusing to process a request because the request content is larger than the server is willing or able to process.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"414","reason":"URI Too Long","section":"15.5.15","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"A 414 response is heuristically cacheable; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see Section 4.2.2 of [CACHING]).","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"421","reason":"Misdirected Request","section":"15.5.20","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"A proxy MUST NOT generate a 421 response.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"422","reason":"Unprocessable Content","section":"15.5.21","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"The 422 (Unprocessable Content) status code indicates that the server understands the content type of the request content (hence a 415 (Unsupported Media Type) status code is inappropriate), and the syntax of the request content is correct, but it was unable to process the contained instructions.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"501","reason":"Not Implemented","section":"15.6.2","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"A 501 response is heuristically cacheable; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see Section 4.2.2 of [CACHING]).","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.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.