ScaffoldBench

RunOpus 5.5repeat 2

Plan-execute-verify on Consolidate duplicate CRM reports

claude-opus-5-5__plan-execute-verify__support-medium__r2

Score

1.000

passed
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.390
Latency
1m 43s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns
54
Tool calls
46
Subagents
0
Tokens in / out
176k / 8.4k
144,736 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 19.8s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.040
Execute: 19.8s to 58.1s, finished, 20 tool calls, $0.144
Verify: 58.1s to 1m 14s, finished, 11 tool calls, $0.076
Revise (round 1): 1m 14s to 1m 29s, finished, 5 tool calls, $0.061
Verify revision 1: 1m 29s to 1m 43s, finished, 10 tool calls, $0.069

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Plan19.8s$0.04020claude-opus-5-5
Execute38.3s$0.1442120claude-opus-5-5
Verify16.0s$0.0761311claude-opus-5-5
Revise (round 1)15.0s$0.06165claude-opus-5-5
Verify revision 113.5s$0.0691210claude-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-medium --models claude-opus-5-5 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

  • passSurvivor carries the earliest SLA deadline of the merged set
    1.00weight 0.23

    sla_due_at=2026-03-17T12:40:00Z (expected 2026-03-17T12:40:00Z)

  • passBoth duplicate reports were merged into the earliest-created ticket
    1.00weight 0.23

    T-1053: status=merged, merged_into=T-1052; T-1054: status=merged, merged_into=T-1052

  • passThe engineering tracking ticket now points at the survivor
    1.00weight 0.15

    T-1061 links=[T-1052]

  • passSurvivor re-graded from the matrix for its widened impact scope
    1.00weight 0.15

    severity=sev2 (matrix says sev2)

  • passSurvivor assigned to the engineer on call for the owning rotation at its deadline
    1.00weight 0.15

    assignee=E-201 (expected E-201)

  • passEvery ticket folded in was read before the merge
    1.00weight 0.08

Penalties

No penalties were applied.

Scorer metadata

tool calls
46
failed tool calls
0
distinct tools
11

Final answer

T-1052 is now assigned to E-201 Ines Kovac again, and the escalation still sits with E-101 Dana Whitfield. The verifier was right: these rules don't actually conflict. The ticket has a separate escalation field, so it can be escalated to platform-primary and still be assigned to someone on business-apps, the team that owns the CRM.

  • Assignee: Before reassigning, I confirmed that Ines Kovac (E-201) is the business-apps engineer on call at the 12:40Z deadline (her shift runs 08:00–20:00Z). Reassigning her didn't change the ticket's escalated status.
  • Unchanged: severity stays sev2, the deadline stays 2026-03-17T12:40Z, and the ticket stays escalated to Dana Whitfield (E-101).
  • Comment: My earlier comment said E-201 was the assignee, which wasn't true at the time. I didn't edit it. Instead I added a new comment on T-1052 explaining what was wrong and what the record shows now.

I didn't touch any other ticket.

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.