RunSonnet 5.5repeat 1
Orchestrator-workers on Where ten HTTP header fields are defined
claude-sonnet-5-5__orchestrator-workers__research-header-fields__r1
Score
1.000
- Cost
- $0.287
- Latency
- 40.7s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.1s
- Turns
- 33
- Tool calls
- 26
- Subagents
- 4
- Tokens in / out
- 146k / 8.6k
- 91,576 read from cache
Did the design run?
- 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
Drawn from the phase records: timing and cost per call, no tool calls or messages.
| Phase | Duration | Cost | Turns | Tools | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decompose | 9.0s | $0.017 | 2 | 0 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Worker 1: caching-age-cc-expires | 15.5s | $0.057 | 7 | 6 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Worker 2: validators-lastmod-etag- | 18.3s | $0.051 | 6 | 5 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Worker 3: location-retryafter | 11.0s | $0.050 | 6 | 5 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Worker 4: hsts-link | 15.9s | $0.071 | 11 | 10 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Synthesize | 13.4s | $0.041 | 1 | 0 | claude-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
- A gate that blocked the right moveGated-execute · Haiku 4.5
- Three proposals beat one agentPropose-select · Haiku 4.5
- A verifier that earned its keepPlan-execute-verify · Sonnet 5.5
- A revision that did not helpPlan-execute-verify · Haiku 4.5
- The control, missing a stepSingle · Haiku 4.5
Record this cell yourself: npm run bench -- run --strategies orchestrator-workers --tasks research-header-fields --models claude-sonnet-5-5 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passheader field Age1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9111
- passheader field Cache-Control1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9111
- passheader field Expires1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9111
- passheader field Last-Modified1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9110
- passheader field ETag1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9110
- passheader field Location1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9110
- passheader field Retry-After1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9110
- passheader field Vary1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc9110
- passheader field Strict-Transport-Security1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc6797
- passheader field Link1.00weight 0.10
quote verified in rfc8288
Penalties
No penalties were applied.
Scorer metadata
- corpus
- {"version":2,"snapshot":"2026-10-01","hash":"86bd1bd14f66db67ec5c7686f5e47663ee99f16c49edb5b9384b8668854857dc","documents":9}
- opened documents
- ["rfc6797","rfc8288","rfc9110","rfc9111"]
- opened by role
- {"primary":["rfc6797","rfc8288","rfc9110","rfc9111"]}
- displayed share
- {"rfc6797":0.1055,"rfc8288":0.1871,"rfc9110":0.061,"rfc9111":0.2136,"mdn-header-cache-control":0.0215,"rfc7231":0.0013}
- cited count
- 4
- verified count
- 4
- hallucinated count
- 0
- citation integrity
- 1
- hallucinated urls
- []
- answer block
- true
- answer block repaired
- false
- items answered
- 10
- item count
- 10
- field accuracy
- 1
- grounded items
- 10
- field misses
- {}
Final answer
I have not opened any pages myself. This answer rests entirely on the four worker reports, and the quotes are as the workers copied them. I could not re-check them against the pages.
Findings
- Age, Cache-Control, Expires are defined in RFC 9111, in sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 respectively (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9111.html). The page says it obsoletes RFC 7234, and it shows no later replacement. That worker also searched for "RFC 9111 obsoleted by" and found nothing.
- Last-Modified, ETag, Vary are defined in RFC 9110, in sections 8.8.2, 8.8.3 and 12.5.5 respectively (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html). RFC 9110 obsoletes RFC 7231 and RFC 7232. Its header shows no "Obsoleted by" line, but that worker checked no other source.
- Location, Retry-After are defined in RFC 9110, in sections 10.2.2 and 10.2.3 respectively (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html). That worker also found no sign that RFC 9110 has been obsoleted, and did not check the RFC Editor's metadata for it.
- Strict-Transport-Security is defined in RFC 6797, section 6.1 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6797.html).
- Link is defined in RFC 8288, section 3 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8288.html). RFC 8288 obsoletes RFC 5988.
Caveat on "currently defines"
Every "not obsoleted" conclusion rests on the opened RFC pages showing no "Obsoleted by" text, plus one search for RFC 9111. For RFC 6797 and RFC 8288 the RFC Editor info pages returned 404, so neither could be checked against the RFC index. No worker reported conflicting sources.
{"answers":[{"field":"Age","rfc":"9111","section":"5.1","quote":"The Age field value is a non-negative integer, representing time in seconds (see Section 1.2.2).","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9111.html"},{"field":"Cache-Control","rfc":"9111","section":"5.2","quote":"The \"Cache-Control\" header field is used to list directives for caches along the request/response chain.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9111.html"},{"field":"Expires","rfc":"9111","section":"5.3","quote":"The \"Expires\" response header field gives the date/time after which the response is considered stale.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9111.html"},{"field":"Last-Modified","rfc":"9110","section":"8.8.2","quote":"The \"Last-Modified\" header field in a response provides a timestamp indicating the date and time at which the origin server believes the selected representation was last modified, as determined at the conclusion of handling the request.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"field":"ETag","rfc":"9110","section":"8.8.3","quote":"An entity tag consists of an opaque quoted string, possibly prefixed by a weakness indicator.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"field":"Location","rfc":"9110","section":"10.2.2","quote":"The field value consists of a single URI-reference.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"field":"Retry-After","rfc":"9110","section":"10.2.3","quote":"The Retry-After field value can be either an HTTP-date or a number of seconds to delay after receiving the response.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"field":"Vary","rfc":"9110","section":"12.5.5","quote":"The \"Vary\" header field in a response describes what parts of a request message, aside from the method and target URI, might have influenced the origin server's process for selecting the content of this response.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"field":"Strict-Transport-Security","rfc":"6797","section":"6.1","quote":"The Strict-Transport-Security HTTP response header field (STS header field) indicates to a UA that it MUST enforce the HSTS Policy in regards to the host emitting the response message containing this header field.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6797.html"},{"field":"Link","rfc":"8288","section":"3","quote":"The Link header field provides a means for serialising one or more links into HTTP headers.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8288.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.