ScaffoldBench

RunOpus 5.5repeat 2

Propose-select on Twelve HTTP status codes, by the book

claude-opus-5-5__propose-select__research-status-codes__r2

Score

1.000

passed
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.900
Latency
1m 16s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.3s
Turns
28
Tool calls
23
Subagents
3
Tokens in / out
220k / 16k
141,703 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.
  • All three proposers ran: heldpropose-select.proposalsThree proposers ran in parallel, each from its own angle, and none was starved while another ran.
  • The selector chose: heldpropose-select.selectionThe selector picked a proposal by a valid number, read from its schema reply and not a default.
  • Each call was shown the right tools: heldpropose-select.toolsEach proposer was shown the read-only tools, the selector none, and the executor the full toolset.

Phases

Proposal 1 (policy-first): 0.0s to 31.0s, finished, 8 tool calls, $0.257
Proposal 2 (state-first): 0.0s to 44.4s, finished, 8 tool calls, $0.236
Proposal 3 (outcome-first): 0.0s to 38.0s, finished, 7 tool calls, $0.257
Select: 44.4s to 1m 16s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.149

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Proposal 1 (policy-first)31.0s$0.25798claude-opus-5-5
Proposal 2 (state-first)44.4s$0.23698claude-opus-5-5
Proposal 3 (outcome-first)38.0s$0.25787claude-opus-5-5
Select31.5s$0.14920claude-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 propose-select --tasks research-status-codes --models claude-opus-5-5 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

  • passstatus code 203
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 206
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 303
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 307
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 308
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 405
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 410
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 413
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 414
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 421
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 422
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 501
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

Penalties

No penalties were applied.

Scorer metadata

corpus
{"version":2,"snapshot":"2026-10-01","hash":"9841e181cc36236e3bc98c18c73e938cf003a35611d0f06c8d8da6ee7161ee1f","documents":6}
opened documents
["rfc9110"]
opened by role
{"primary":["rfc9110"]}
displayed share
{"rfc9110":0.0892}
cited count
1
verified count
1
hallucinated count
0
citation integrity
1
hallucinated urls
[]
answer block
true
answer block repaired
false
items answered
12
item count
12
field accuracy
1
grounded items
12
field misses
{}

Final answer

I checked all 12 codes against RFC 9110, "HTTP Semantics", which is the current specification. I read each code's own numbered section at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html.

Which codes are heuristically cacheable

Section 15.1 lists them: "Responses with status codes that are defined as heuristically cacheable (e.g., 200, 203, 204, 206, 300, 301, 308, 404, 405, 410, 414, and 501 in this specification)". It then says "all other status codes are not heuristically cacheable" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html).

Each code's own section agrees with that list:

  • Cacheable: the sections for 203, 206, 308, 405, 410, 414 and 501 each say "A NNN response is heuristically cacheable".
  • Not cacheable: the sections for 303, 307, 413, 421 and 422 don't say this.
  • 206 is worded slightly differently: its sentence says "unless otherwise indicated by explicit cache controls" and doesn't mention "the method definition".
CodeReason phraseSectionHeuristically cacheable
203Non-Authoritative Information15.3.4yes
206Partial Content15.3.7yes
303See Other15.4.4no
307Temporary Redirect15.4.8no
308Permanent Redirect15.4.9yes
405Method Not Allowed15.5.6yes
410Gone15.5.11yes
413Content Too Large15.5.14no
414URI Too Long15.5.15yes
421Misdirected Request15.5.20no
422Unprocessable Content15.5.21no
501Not Implemented15.6.2yes

Two names have changed. The current spec calls 413 "Content Too Large" and 422 "Unprocessable Content". Older sources use "Payload Too Large" and "Unprocessable Entity".

About the quotes. Each quote comes from its code's own section, not from the overview list or the table of contents. The page wraps long lines, so where a quote crossed a line break I joined the lines with a single space. I used only the specification itself, so there were no conflicting sources.

{"answers":[
{"code":"203","reason":"Non-Authoritative Information","section":"15.3.4","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"This status code allows the proxy to notify recipients when a transformation has been applied, since that knowledge might impact later decisions regarding the content.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"206","reason":"Partial Content","section":"15.3.7","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"A client MUST inspect a 206 response's Content-Type and Content-Range field(s) to determine what parts are enclosed and whether additional requests are needed.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"303","reason":"See Other","section":"15.4.4","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"This status code is applicable to any HTTP method.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"307","reason":"Temporary Redirect","section":"15.4.8","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"Since the redirection can change over time, the client ought to continue using the original target URI for future requests.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"308","reason":"Permanent Redirect","section":"15.4.9","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"The 308 (Permanent Redirect) status code indicates that the target resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource ought to use one of the enclosed URIs.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"405","reason":"Method Not Allowed","section":"15.5.6","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"The origin server MUST generate an Allow header field in a 405 response containing a list of the target resource's currently supported methods.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"410","reason":"Gone","section":"15.5.11","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"The 410 (Gone) status code indicates that access to the target resource is no longer available at the origin server and that this condition is likely to be permanent.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"413","reason":"Content Too Large","section":"15.5.14","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"If the condition is temporary, the server SHOULD generate a Retry-After header field to indicate that it is temporary and after what time the client MAY try again.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"414","reason":"URI Too Long","section":"15.5.15","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"The 414 (URI Too Long) status code indicates that the server is refusing to service the request because the target URI is longer than the server is willing to interpret.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"421","reason":"Misdirected Request","section":"15.5.20","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"A proxy MUST NOT generate a 421 response.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"422","reason":"Unprocessable Content","section":"15.5.21","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"For example, this status code can be sent if an XML request content contains well-formed (i.e., syntactically correct), but semantically erroneous XML instructions.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"code":"501","reason":"Not Implemented","section":"15.6.2","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"This is the appropriate response when the server does not recognize the request method and is not capable of supporting it for any resource.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"}
]}

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.