ScaffoldBench

RunOpus 5.5repeat 1

Plan-execute-verify on Triage the weekend's queue on Monday morning

claude-opus-5-5__plan-execute-verify__support-monday-triage__r1

Score

1.000

passed
design ran as designed
Cost
$1.13
Latency
4m 9s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns
166
Tool calls
158
Subagents
0
Tokens in / out
573k / 25k
498,829 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 24.1s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.049
Execute: 24.1s to 1m 47s, finished, 66 tool calls, $0.403
Verify: 1m 47s to 2m 36s, finished, 34 tool calls, $0.277
Revise (round 1): 2m 36s to 3m 19s, finished, 22 tool calls, $0.151
Verify revision 1: 3m 19s to 4m 9s, finished, 36 tool calls, $0.248

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Plan24.1s$0.04920claude-opus-5-5
Execute1m 23s$0.4036766claude-opus-5-5
Verify48.2s$0.2773634claude-opus-5-5
Revise (round 1)43.2s$0.1512322claude-opus-5-5
Verify revision 150.3s$0.2483836claude-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-monday-triage --models claude-opus-5-5 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

  • passT-2001 graded sev3
    1.00weight 0.02

    severity=sev3

  • passT-2001 due 2026-03-23T17:00:00Z
    1.00weight 0.02

    sla_due_at=2026-03-23T17:00:00Z

  • passT-2001 assigned to E-303
    1.00weight 0.02

    assignee=E-303

  • passT-2002 graded sev4
    1.00weight 0.02

    severity=sev4

  • passT-2002 due 2026-03-26T17:00:00Z
    1.00weight 0.02

    sla_due_at=2026-03-26T17:00:00Z

  • passT-2002 assigned to E-203
    1.00weight 0.02

    assignee=E-203

  • passT-2003 graded sev2
    1.00weight 0.02

    severity=sev2

  • passT-2003 due 2026-03-23T10:30:00Z
    1.00weight 0.02

    sla_due_at=2026-03-23T10:30:00Z

  • passT-2003 assigned to E-101
    1.00weight 0.02

    assignee=E-101

  • passT-2004 graded sev2
    1.00weight 0.02

    severity=sev2

  • passT-2004 due 2026-03-23T12:10:00Z
    1.00weight 0.02

    sla_due_at=2026-03-23T12:10:00Z

  • passT-2004 assigned to E-201
    1.00weight 0.02

    assignee=E-201

  • passT-2006 graded sev2
    1.00weight 0.02

    severity=sev2

  • passT-2006 due 2026-03-23T12:10:00Z
    1.00weight 0.02

    sla_due_at=2026-03-23T12:10:00Z

  • passT-2006 assigned to E-201
    1.00weight 0.02

    assignee=E-201

  • passT-2007 graded sev2
    1.00weight 0.02

    severity=sev2

  • passT-2007 due 2026-03-23T12:10:00Z
    1.00weight 0.02

    sla_due_at=2026-03-23T12:10:00Z

  • passT-2007 assigned to E-601
    1.00weight 0.02

    assignee=E-601

  • passT-2008 graded sev4
    1.00weight 0.02

    severity=sev4

  • passT-2008 due 2026-03-26T17:00:00Z
    1.00weight 0.02

    sla_due_at=2026-03-26T17:00:00Z

  • passT-2008 assigned to E-302
    1.00weight 0.02

    assignee=E-302

  • passT-2009 graded sev4
    1.00weight 0.02

    severity=sev4

  • passT-2009 due 2026-03-26T17:00:00Z
    1.00weight 0.02

    sla_due_at=2026-03-26T17:00:00Z

  • passT-2009 assigned to E-102
    1.00weight 0.02

    assignee=E-102

  • passT-2011 graded sev2
    1.00weight 0.02

    severity=sev2

  • passT-2011 due 2026-03-23T12:10:00Z
    1.00weight 0.02

    sla_due_at=2026-03-23T12:10:00Z

  • passT-2011 assigned to E-201
    1.00weight 0.02

    assignee=E-201

  • passT-2013 graded sev2
    1.00weight 0.02

    severity=sev2

  • passT-2013 due 2026-03-23T12:10:00Z
    1.00weight 0.02

    sla_due_at=2026-03-23T12:10:00Z

  • passT-2013 assigned to E-303
    1.00weight 0.02

    assignee=E-303

  • passT-2015 graded sev1
    1.00weight 0.02

    severity=sev1

  • passT-2015 due 2026-03-23T09:10:00Z
    1.00weight 0.02

    sla_due_at=2026-03-23T09:10:00Z

  • passT-2015 assigned to E-201
    1.00weight 0.02

    assignee=E-201

  • passT-2016 graded sev4
    1.00weight 0.02

    severity=sev4

  • passT-2016 due 2026-03-26T17:00:00Z
    1.00weight 0.02

    sla_due_at=2026-03-26T17:00:00Z

  • passT-2016 assigned to E-302
    1.00weight 0.02

    assignee=E-302

  • passT-2012 merged into T-2003
    1.00weight 0.02
  • passT-1999 merged into T-2003
    1.00weight 0.02
  • passT-2005 merged into T-2004
    1.00weight 0.02
  • passT-2010 closed as not a service request
    1.00weight 0.02
  • passT-2014 closed as not a service request
    1.00weight 0.02

Penalties

No penalties were applied.

Scorer metadata

tool calls
158
failed tool calls
0
distinct tools
16

Final answer

I fixed both issues the verifier raised, and the new queue is now empty.

1. T-2015 and T-2016 are now triaged. The verifier was right. Both tickets were created at 08:10, which is the current desk time, so they were in the queue the whole time. I should have triaged them on the first pass.

  • T-2015, Finance can't see payslips (payroll, department): sev1. The matrix makes department-wide payroll sev1, and the payroll amendment only changes single-user tickets. It's due 09:10 today, 60 minutes on the clock from 08:10. I assigned it to E-201 Ines Kovac, who is on call for business-apps at 09:10 and not on leave. It affects one department rather than the whole company, so it isn't a major incident and I sent no pages.
  • T-2016, VPN token app asks to re-register (single user): sev4, due Thursday 26 March 17:00. The business-hours count starts at 09:00 today and skips the 25 March holiday. I assigned it to E-302 Marcus Feld, who is on call for network-primary then and not on leave. I didn't treat it as a security incident: the requester doesn't mention phishing, a leaked password or malware, only a token the app no longer recognises. That this came in right after the phishing report T-2007 is a coincidence, not a reason to re-route it.

2. T-1999 is merged into T-2003. T-1999 is an automatic alert about payments-service pipelines failing since Saturday night. That is the same problem as T-2003 and T-2012, which I had already merged.

  • T-2003 was reported first, so it stays open and keeps its department-wide impact and sev2.
  • Its deadline is now 10:30 today instead of 12:10, because the merge rule says the kept ticket carries the earliest deadline promised on any ticket in the set. T-1999 had 10:30 promised. The 12:10 was only set by me this morning, so no deadline promised to a requester moved earlier.
  • Dana Whitfield (E-101) still has it. She was already on T-1999 as well.
  • No knowledge-base article confirms these are the same problem; I grouped them by service, symptom and timing.

I changed nothing else.

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.