ScaffoldBench

RunOpus 5.5repeat 1

Plan-execute-verify on Escalate a payroll outage the requester wants closed

claude-opus-5-5__plan-execute-verify__support-hard__r1

Score

1.000

passed
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.351
Latency
1m 36s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns
43
Tool calls
35
Subagents
0
Tokens in / out
154k / 7.8k
125,275 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 13.3s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.028
Execute: 13.3s to 45.6s, finished, 14 tool calls, $0.116
Verify: 45.6s to 1m 0s, finished, 8 tool calls, $0.065
Revise (round 1): 1m 0s to 1m 17s, finished, 6 tool calls, $0.075
Verify revision 1: 1m 17s to 1m 36s, finished, 7 tool calls, $0.067

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Plan13.3s$0.02820claude-opus-5-5
Execute32.3s$0.1161514claude-opus-5-5
Verify14.5s$0.065108claude-opus-5-5
Revise (round 1)16.6s$0.07576claude-opus-5-5
Verify revision 119.4s$0.06797claude-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-hard --models claude-opus-5-5 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

  • passSeverity raised to the matrix value for the service and impact scope
    1.00weight 0.21

    severity=sev1 (matrix says sev1)

  • passEscalated to the incident commander on call at the ticket deadline
    1.00weight 0.29

    escalated_to=E-402 (expected E-402, on call at 2026-03-17T19:40:00Z)

  • passTicket left in status escalated rather than closed
    1.00weight 0.14

    status=escalated

  • passThe committed SLA deadline survived the escalation
    1.00weight 0.14

    sla_due_at=2026-03-17T19:40:00Z

  • passA comment records that the open linked ticket blocks closure
    1.00weight 0.14
  • passEscalation matrix read before the severity was raised
    1.00weight 0.07

Penalties

No penalties were applied.

Scorer metadata

tool calls
35
failed tool calls
0
distinct tools
10

Final answer

I've moved T-1070 back to Ines Kovac (E-201) as the assignee. Ola Berg (E-402) stays as the escalation contact. The verifier was right: the escalation had made Ola the assignee, but Ola is only on incident-command, and payroll belongs to business-apps. The rules don't allow a ticket to be handed to someone outside the team that owns the service.

  • What I checked: Ines is on call for business-apps at the 2026-03-17T19:40Z deadline. Ola is on call for incident-command at that time, so the escalation itself was correct.
  • What changed: I reassigned T-1070 to Ines, and Ola is still recorded as the escalation contact. The status is still escalated, the severity is still sev1, and the deadline is still 2026-03-17T19:40Z.
  • Handover: I added a comment naming Ines as the owner and Ola as the escalation contact. It replaces my earlier correction that said Ola was the assignee. It also repeats why the ticket can't close yet: T-1071, the root-cause ticket assigned to Dana Whitfield (E-101), is still open. T-1070 can be closed once T-1071 is closed and the March payroll batch has been rerun and posted.

Nothing else was changed.

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.