ScaffoldBench

RunOpus 5.5repeat 1

Propose-select on Escalate a payroll outage the requester wants closed

claude-opus-5-5__propose-select__support-hard__r1

Score

1.000

passed
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.372
Latency
1m 2s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns
42
Tool calls
36
Subagents
3
Tokens in / out
127k / 9.1k
96,389 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 20.2s, finished, 8 tool calls, $0.063
Proposal 2 (state-first): 0.0s to 24.3s, finished, 9 tool calls, $0.067
Proposal 3 (outcome-first): 0.0s to 21.8s, finished, 9 tool calls, $0.069
Select: 24.3s to 38.4s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.069
Execute: 38.4s to 1m 2s, finished, 10 tool calls, $0.104

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Proposal 1 (policy-first)20.2s$0.06398claude-opus-5-5
Proposal 2 (state-first)24.3s$0.067109claude-opus-5-5
Proposal 3 (outcome-first)21.8s$0.069109claude-opus-5-5
Select14.1s$0.06920claude-opus-5-5
Execute23.5s$0.1041110claude-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 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
36
failed tool calls
0
distinct tools
8

Final answer

I re-graded T-1070 and escalated it to incident command, but I did not close it. It can't be closed yet because the ticket causing the failure, T-1071, is still open. I checked the ticket, the escalation rules and the on-call schedule again before changing anything, and they matched the plan.

What I did on T-1070:

  1. Severity raised from sev3 to sev1. The escalation rules grade a company-wide payroll failure as sev1. The grade comes from those rules, not from how urgent the call was.
  2. Escalated to E-402 Ola Berg on incident command. The rules send sev1 tickets to the incident-command team, and Ola is on call there when the deadline falls at 19:40Z. The ticket's status is now "escalated."
  3. Deadline left at 2026-03-17T19:40Z. That deadline was already promised to Grace. Recalculating it from the sev1 one-hour target would pull it forward to 10:20Z, which the rules don't allow.
  4. Not closed. I added a comment for the next shift instead. It names T-1071 (payroll replica lag, the root cause, assigned to E-101) as the blocker and sets out what has to happen: resolve T-1071, rerun the March payroll batch, confirm the payments post, then close.

Different from the plan: the plan said to keep Ines Kovac (E-201) as the assignee. But escalating a ticket automatically makes the receiving engineer the assignee, so T-1070 is now assigned to Ola Berg. My comment notes that Ines is still on call for the payroll team until 20:00Z for the payroll side of the work.

Not touched: T-1071 and all other tickets. I didn't merge T-1070 and T-1071 because they aren't duplicates: T-1071 is the cause and T-1070 is the failed payroll run that resulted from it.

For Grace: T-1070 is now sev1 and with incident command. It can be closed once T-1071 is fixed and the payroll batch has been rerun successfully. If both happen today, it can still be closed today.

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.