ScaffoldBench

RunSonnet 5.5repeat 2

Orchestrator-workers on Share two short deliveries out among backorders

claude-sonnet-5-5__orchestrator-workers__ecommerce-backorder-allocation__r2

Score

0.872

wrong answer
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.247
Latency
1m 17s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns
69
Tool calls
65
Subagents
1
Tokens in / out
190k / 11k
161,611 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 task was decomposed: heldorchestrator-workers.decompositionThe orchestrator’s reply was read through its schema and held at least one subtask.
  • The fan-out happened: heldorchestrator-workers.fan-outEvery subtask got a worker, every worker ran, and the recorded subagent count matches.
  • The synthesis wrote the answer: heldorchestrator-workers.synthesisThe final answer came from the synthesis call, not from a worker’s report standing in for it.
  • Each call was shown the right tools: heldorchestrator-workers.toolsThe orchestrator and the synthesis were shown no tools and every worker the task’s full toolset.

Phases

Decompose: 0.0s to 7.4s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.018
Worker 1: all: 7.4s to 1m 5s, finished, 65 tool calls, $0.199
Synthesize: 1m 5s to 1m 17s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.030

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Decompose7.4s$0.01820claude-sonnet-5-5
Worker 1: all57.7s$0.1996665claude-sonnet-5-5
Synthesize12.3s$0.03010claude-sonnet-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 orchestrator-workers --tasks ecommerce-backorder-allocation --models claude-sonnet-5-5 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

  • passO-5201 allocated from the delivery
    1.00weight 0.05

    L1=pending

  • passO-5201: customer told once that the order is allocated
    1.00weight 0.01
  • passO-5202 allocated from the delivery
    1.00weight 0.05

    L1=pending L2=pending

  • passO-5202: customer told once that the order is allocated
    1.00weight 0.01
  • passO-5203 allocated from the delivery
    1.00weight 0.05

    L1=pending

  • passO-5203: customer told once that the order is allocated
    1.00weight 0.01
  • passO-5204 allocated from the delivery
    1.00weight 0.05

    L1=pending

  • passO-5204: customer told once that the order is allocated
    1.00weight 0.01
  • passO-5206 left waiting, with a promise date
    1.00weight 0.05

    L1=backordered@2026-08-14 L2=backordered@2026-08-14 L3=pending

  • passO-5206 waiting lines promised for the date the in-transit supply gives them
    1.00weight 0.03

    expected L1@2026-08-14, L2@2026-08-14

  • passO-5206: customer told once, with the promised date
    1.00weight 0.01
  • passO-5207 allocated from the delivery
    1.00weight 0.05

    L1=pending L2=pending

  • passO-5207: customer told once that the order is allocated
    1.00weight 0.01
  • failO-5208 allocated from the delivery
    0.00weight 0.05

    L1=backordered@2026-08-05

  • passO-5208: customer told once that the order is allocated
    1.00weight 0.01
  • passO-5209 allocated from the delivery
    1.00weight 0.05

    L1=pending

  • passO-5209: customer told once that the order is allocated
    1.00weight 0.01
  • passO-5210 allocated from the delivery
    1.00weight 0.05

    L1=pending L2=pending

  • passO-5210: customer told once that the order is allocated
    1.00weight 0.01
  • passO-5211 allocated from the delivery
    1.00weight 0.05

    L1=pending L2=shipped

  • passO-5211: customer told once that the order is allocated
    1.00weight 0.01
  • failO-5212 allocated from the delivery
    0.00weight 0.05

    L1=backordered@2026-08-05

  • passO-5212: customer told once that the order is allocated
    1.00weight 0.01
  • passO-5213 left waiting, with a promise date
    1.00weight 0.05

    L1=backordered@2026-08-14

  • passO-5213 waiting lines promised for the date the in-transit supply gives them
    1.00weight 0.03

    expected L1@2026-08-14

  • passO-5213: customer told once, with the promised date
    1.00weight 0.01
  • passO-5214 left waiting, with a promise date
    1.00weight 0.05

    L1=backordered@2026-08-19

  • passO-5214 waiting lines promised for the date the in-transit supply gives them
    1.00weight 0.03

    expected L1@2026-08-19

  • passO-5214: customer told once, with the promised date
    1.00weight 0.01
  • passO-5215 allocated from the delivery
    1.00weight 0.05

    L1=pending

  • passO-5215: customer told once that the order is allocated
    1.00weight 0.01
  • failBoth deliveries were allocated in full
    0.00weight 0.03

    P-DOC stock=0, P-MON stock=3

Penalties

No penalties were applied.

Scorer metadata

tool calls
65
failed tool calls
0
distinct tools
10

Final answer

The backorders for P-DOC and P-MON have been worked, but I'm flagging two judgment calls in the worker's report that you should confirm.

Allocated

  • Laptop docks (P-DOC), 11 units: O-5201 L1 (2), O-5202 L2 (1), O-5204 L1 (2), O-5207 L1 (1), O-5209 L1 (2), O-5210 L1 (1), O-5211 L1 (1), O-5215 L1 (1).
  • Monitors (P-MON), 4 units from PO-89: O-5202 L1 (1), O-5203 L1 (2), O-5207 L2 (1).
  • O-5207 is ship-complete and both its lines were allocated.

Still waiting, with promise dates

  • O-5206 L1 (dock) and L2 (hub): 2026-08-14. The order is ship-complete, so both lines take the later date. The hub alone would arrive 2026-08-06 on PO-90.
  • O-5213 L1 (dock, 2 units): 2026-08-14, from PO-95.
  • O-5208 L1 (monitor, 2 units): 2026-08-05, from PO-93.
  • O-5212 L1 (monitor, 1 unit): 2026-08-05, from PO-93.
  • O-5214 L1 (monitor, 1 unit): 2026-08-19, from PO-97, because PO-93 was fully spoken for.

Left alone

  • O-5205 is on risk hold. It was not allocated, given no promise date, and its customer was not contacted. Its dock line is still backordered.

Customer notices

  • One notice went to each of the other 14 customers (N-1 to N-14), after their lines were allocated or promised.

Points to confirm

  1. PO-91 was used, though you named only PO-88 and PO-89. The worker says PO-91 (4 docks) was marked received mid-task and allocated that stock too. That is how 11 docks were allocated rather than the 7 from PO-88. This goes beyond the request, and I can't tell from the report whether it was appropriate. If you wanted PO-91 left alone, the dock allocations and the dock promise dates need review.
  2. The date used differs from today's date. The worker used 2026-07-25, which the tools reported, rather than 2026-10-06. That date decided whether dated update PU-12 applied. PU-12 put orders placed 14 or more days earlier first: O-5201, O-5202, O-5203 and O-5204. PU-9, which ranks gold with platinum, was ignored as a June-only rule. If the real date is 2026-10-06, the priority order, and so the allocations and promise dates, could change. I have no evidence to settle this beyond the worker's report.

Everything above comes from the worker's report. I did not check it independently.

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.