RunSonnet 5.5repeat 1
Orchestrator-workers on Twelve HTTP status codes, by the book
claude-sonnet-5-5__orchestrator-workers__research-status-codes__r1
Score
1.000
- Cost
- $0.377
- Latency
- 1m 3s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.3s
- Turns
- 33
- Tool calls
- 27
- Subagents
- 3
- Tokens in / out
- 253k / 11k
- 186,694 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 | 8.7s | $0.019 | 2 | 0 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Worker 1: group-a | 16.0s | $0.084 | 8 | 7 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Worker 2: group-b | 37.8s | $0.144 | 15 | 14 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Worker 3: group-c | 16.8s | $0.074 | 7 | 6 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Synthesize | 16.5s | $0.056 | 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-status-codes --models claude-sonnet-5-5 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passstatus code 2031.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 2061.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 3031.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 3071.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 3081.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 4051.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 4101.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 4131.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 4141.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 4211.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 4221.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 5011.00weight 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","rfc9111"]
- opened by role
- {"primary":["rfc9110"],"distractor":["rfc9111"]}
- displayed share
- {"rfc9110":0.0878,"rfc9111":0.1099,"rfc7231":0.0023,"mdn-status-codes":0.0181,"mdn-status-308":0.1405}
- 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
All twelve codes are covered by RFC 9110, "HTTP Semantics" (STD 97, June 2022), at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html. I did not open the page myself and relied on the three worker reports.
Which RFC is current: All three workers saw no "Obsoleted by" line on the RFC 9110 page and found no newer RFC in their searches. That is only a negative check. The rfc-editor info page returned 404, so I can't say it was positively confirmed.
Heuristic cacheability:
- Section 15.1 of RFC 9110 lists the heuristically cacheable codes as "200, 203, 204, 206, 300, 301, 308, 404, 405, 410, 414, and 501", and says all other status codes are not heuristically cacheable.
- Worker group-c saw this text through a
findresult, and group-b saw it only as a search snippet. Neither read the full surrounding sentence. - The workers also found explicit "is heuristically cacheable" statements in the sections for 203, 206, 308, 405, 410, 414 and 501.
- The sections for 303, 307, 413, 421 and 422 have no such statement, and those codes are not in the 15.1 list, so I marked them false.
Renamed reason phrases: 413 is now "Content Too Large", 414 is "URI Too Long" and 422 is "Unprocessable Content". Group-b reports 413 was "Payload Too Large" in RFC 7231. Group-c reports 414 was "Request-URI Too Long" in RFC 7231 and 422 was "Unprocessable Entity" in RFC 4918, but did not open either older RFC.
Quotes: Some quoted sentences wrap across lines in the page text (group-b noted this for 308, 405 and 413), so a checker may need to normalize whitespace.
| Code | Reason | Section | Heuristically cacheable |
|---|---|---|---|
| 203 | Non-Authoritative Information | 15.3.4 | yes |
| 206 | Partial Content | 15.3.7 | yes |
| 303 | See Other | 15.4.4 | no |
| 307 | Temporary Redirect | 15.4.8 | no |
| 308 | Permanent Redirect | 15.4.9 | yes |
| 405 | Method Not Allowed | 15.5.6 | yes |
| 410 | Gone | 15.5.11 | yes |
| 413 | Content Too Large | 15.5.14 | no |
| 414 | URI Too Long | 15.5.15 | yes |
| 421 | Misdirected Request | 15.5.20 | no |
| 422 | Unprocessable Content | 15.5.21 | no |
| 501 | Not Implemented | 15.6.2 | yes |
{"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":"The user agent MAY use the Location field value for automatic redirection.","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":"A 410 response is heuristically cacheable; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see Section 4.2.2 of [CACHING]).","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":"The 501 (Not Implemented) status code indicates that the server does not support the functionality required to fulfill the request.","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.