ScaffoldBench

RunSonnet 5.5repeat 2

Orchestrator-workers on Twelve HTTP status codes, by the book

claude-sonnet-5-5__orchestrator-workers__research-status-codes__r2

Score

1.000

passed
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.303
Latency
44.4s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.3s
Turns
26
Tool calls
20
Subagents
3
Tokens in / out
123k / 10k
66,813 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 8.2s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.018
Worker 1: codes-203-206-303: 8.2s to 24.2s, finished, 6 tool calls, $0.077
Worker 2: codes-307-308-405-410: 8.2s to 28.5s, finished, 9 tool calls, $0.093
Worker 3: codes-413-414-421-422-50: 8.2s to 25.3s, finished, 5 tool calls, $0.060
Synthesize: 28.5s to 44.4s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.056

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Decompose8.2s$0.01820claude-sonnet-5-5
Worker 1: codes-203-206-30316.0s$0.07776claude-sonnet-5-5
Worker 2: codes-307-308-405-41020.3s$0.093109claude-sonnet-5-5
Worker 3: codes-413-414-421-422-5017.1s$0.06065claude-sonnet-5-5
Synthesize15.9s$0.05610claude-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 research-status-codes --models claude-sonnet-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":0.0869,"rfc9111":0.0029,"mdn-status-codes":0.0207,"rfc7231":0.0026,"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 the three worker reports. They agree with each other, and nothing was left unfinished. I did not open any pages myself, so everything below rests on what the workers reported.

The current HTTP Semantics specification is RFC 9110 (STD 97, June 2022), at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html. All three workers found no "Obsoleted by" notice on it and no newer replacement in search. It obsoletes RFC 7231 and others.

Section 15.1 of that page lists the heuristically cacheable codes as "200, 203, 204, 206, 300, 301, 308, 404, 405, 410, 414, and 501 in this specification", and says all other status codes are not heuristically cacheable.

  • Cacheable: 203, 206, 308, 405, 410, 414 and 501 are in that list.
  • Not cacheable: 303, 307, 413, 421 and 422 are not in the list, and their own sections say nothing about heuristic cacheability.
  • Renamed codes: 413 is now "Content Too Large" (RFC 7231 called it "Payload Too Large"). 422 is now "Unprocessable Content" (older RFCs called it "Unprocessable Entity").
  • Quote formatting: the workers joined some quotes across line breaks so they read as single sentences.
{"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 server SHOULD generate a Location header field in the response containing a URI reference for the different URI.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"308","reason":"Permanent Redirect","section":"15.4.9","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"The server SHOULD generate a Location header field in the response containing a preferred URI reference for the new permanent URI.","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":"The 413 (Content Too Large) status code indicates that the server is refusing to process a request because the request content is larger than the server is willing or able to process.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"414","reason":"URI Too Long","section":"15.5.15","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"A 414 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":"421","reason":"Misdirected Request","section":"15.5.20","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"A client that receives a 421 (Misdirected Request) response MAY retry the request, whether or not the request method is idempotent, over a different connection, such as a fresh connection specific to the target resource's origin, or via an alternative service [ALTSVC].","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"422","reason":"Unprocessable Content","section":"15.5.21","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"The 422 (Unprocessable Content) status code indicates that the server understands the content type of the request content (hence a 415 (Unsupported Media Type) status code is inappropriate), and the syntax of the request content is correct, but it was unable to process the contained instructions.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"501","reason":"Not Implemented","section":"15.6.2","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"A 501 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"}]}

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.