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
- 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?
- 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 | 18.5s | $0.036 | 2 | 0 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Execute | 1m 7s | $0.311 | 60 | 59 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Verify | 30.8s | $0.149 | 32 | 30 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Revise (round 1) | 14.7s | $0.069 | 10 | 9 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Verify revision 1 | 34.7s | $0.177 | 46 | 44 | 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 support-access-requests --models claude-opus-5-5 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passAR-301 granted at read1.00weight 0.06
read
- passAR-301 granted without an expiry1.00weight 0.03
never
- passAR-302 granted at write1.00weight 0.06
write
- passAR-302 expires on 2026-04-031.00weight 0.03
2026-04-03T00:00:00Z
- passAR-303 held pending (change freeze), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-304 granted at read, or held for the approval of admin1.00weight 0.06
read
- passAR-304 granted without an expiry1.00weight 0.03
never
- passAR-305 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-306 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-307 granted at read1.00weight 0.06
read
- passAR-307 expires on 2026-04-171.00weight 0.03
2026-04-17T10:00:00Z
- passAR-308 granted at admin1.00weight 0.06
admin
- passAR-308 expires on 2026-03-251.00weight 0.03
2026-03-25T10:00:00Z
- passAR-309 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-310 granted at read1.00weight 0.06
read
- passAR-310 granted without an expiry1.00weight 0.03
never
- passAR-311 held pending (separation of duties), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-312 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-313 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-314 granted at write1.00weight 0.06
write
- passAR-314 expires on 2026-03-311.00weight 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.