ScaffoldBench

RunOpus 5.5repeat 1

Plan-execute-verify on Work the access request queue

claude-opus-5-5__plan-execute-verify__support-access-requests__r1

Score

1.000

passed
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.742
Latency
2m 46s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns
150
Tool calls
142
Subagents
0
Tokens in / out
391k / 16k
340,392 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 18.5s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.036
Execute: 18.5s to 1m 25s, finished, 59 tool calls, $0.311
Verify: 1m 25s to 1m 56s, finished, 30 tool calls, $0.149
Revise (round 1): 1m 56s to 2m 11s, finished, 9 tool calls, $0.069
Verify revision 1: 2m 11s to 2m 46s, finished, 44 tool calls, $0.177

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Plan18.5s$0.03620claude-opus-5-5
Execute1m 7s$0.3116059claude-opus-5-5
Verify30.8s$0.1493230claude-opus-5-5
Revise (round 1)14.7s$0.069109claude-opus-5-5
Verify revision 134.7s$0.1774644claude-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 support-access-requests --models claude-opus-5-5 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

  • passAR-301 granted at read
    1.00weight 0.06

    read

  • passAR-301 granted without an expiry
    1.00weight 0.03

    never

  • passAR-302 granted at write
    1.00weight 0.06

    write

  • passAR-302 expires on 2026-04-03
    1.00weight 0.03

    2026-04-03T00:00:00Z

  • passAR-303 held pending (change freeze), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-304 granted at read, or held for the approval of admin
    1.00weight 0.06

    read

  • passAR-304 granted without an expiry
    1.00weight 0.03

    never

  • passAR-305 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-306 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-307 granted at read
    1.00weight 0.06

    read

  • passAR-307 expires on 2026-04-17
    1.00weight 0.03

    2026-04-17T10:00:00Z

  • passAR-308 granted at admin
    1.00weight 0.06

    admin

  • passAR-308 expires on 2026-03-25
    1.00weight 0.03

    2026-03-25T10:00:00Z

  • passAR-309 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-310 granted at read
    1.00weight 0.06

    read

  • passAR-310 granted without an expiry
    1.00weight 0.03

    never

  • passAR-311 held pending (separation of duties), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-312 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-313 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-314 granted at write
    1.00weight 0.06

    write

  • passAR-314 expires on 2026-03-31
    1.00weight 0.03

    2026-03-31T00:00:00Z

Penalties

No penalties were applied.

Scorer metadata

tool calls
142
failed tool calls
0
distinct tools
11

Final answer

I granted AR-314: Tariq Nasser now has write access on build-staging, expiring 2026-03-31T00:00Z (grant GR-9). The verifier was right. This request was still pending, and my earlier report wrongly said there were only 13.

Before granting, I checked:

  • Approval: Marco Ferrer, Tariq's line manager, approved write at 2026-03-18T10:00Z. That's current, not withdrawn, and not past the 14-day limit.
  • System: build-staging is a staging system, so it doesn't need the system owner's approval as well.
  • Freezes: neither change freeze covers build-staging.
  • Conflicts: Tariq held no access before this, and the separation-of-duties rule only concerns payroll-prod and bank-payments.
  • Expiry: Tariq is a contractor whose contract ends 2026-03-31. That's earlier than the 30-day contractor limit (2026-04-17), so access ends on the contract's last day. I used midnight at the start of that day, the same way I handled AR-302.

Nothing else was changed.

So the pending queue had 14 requests in total: 7 granted and 7 still pending, each with a comment saying what it's waiting for.

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.