ScaffoldBench

RunSonnet 5.5repeat 2

Orchestrator-workers on Work the access request queue

claude-sonnet-5-5__orchestrator-workers__support-access-requests__r2

Score

0.914

wrong answer
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.230
Latency
1m 5s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns
73
Tool calls
68
Subagents
2
Tokens in / out
160k / 11k
132,438 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 9.2s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.015
Worker 1: access-a-to-l: 9.2s to 25.0s, finished, 20 tool calls, $0.052
Worker 2: access-m-to-z: 9.2s to 50.7s, finished, 48 tool calls, $0.129
Synthesize: 50.7s to 1m 5s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.034

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Decompose9.2s$0.01520claude-sonnet-5-5
Worker 1: access-a-to-l15.8s$0.0522120claude-sonnet-5-5
Worker 2: access-m-to-z41.5s$0.1294948claude-sonnet-5-5
Synthesize14.7s$0.03410claude-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 support-access-requests --models claude-sonnet-5-5 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

  • passAR-301 granted at read
    1.00weight 0.06

    read

  • passAR-301 granted without an expiry
    1.00weight 0.03

    never

  • passAR-302 granted at write
    1.00weight 0.06

    write

  • passAR-302 expires on 2026-04-03
    1.00weight 0.03

    2026-04-03T23:59:59Z

  • passAR-303 held pending (change freeze), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-304 granted at read, or held for the approval of admin
    1.00weight 0.06

    read

  • passAR-304 granted without an expiry
    1.00weight 0.03

    never

  • passAR-305 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-306 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-307 granted at read
    1.00weight 0.06

    read

  • passAR-307 expires on 2026-04-17
    1.00weight 0.03

    2026-04-17T10:00:00Z

  • passAR-308 granted at admin
    1.00weight 0.06

    admin

  • passAR-308 expires on 2026-03-25
    1.00weight 0.03

    2026-03-25T10:00:00Z

  • passAR-309 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-310 granted at read
    1.00weight 0.06

    read

  • passAR-310 granted without an expiry
    1.00weight 0.03

    never

  • passAR-311 held pending (separation of duties), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-312 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • passAR-313 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why
    1.00weight 0.06
  • failAR-314 granted at write
    0.00weight 0.06

    not granted

  • failAR-314 expires on 2026-03-31
    0.00weight 0.03

    not granted

Penalties

No penalties were applied.

Scorer metadata

tool calls
68
failed tool calls
0
distinct tools
11

Final answer

Of the 13 pending access requests, 6 were granted and 7 are still pending with a comment on each. This rests only on the two workers' reports; I did not check the system myself.

Granted (6)

  • AR-301 (Lara Kim, crm-prod, read): granted as GR-3, no expiry. The line manager and the system owner both approved read.
  • AR-310 (Lara Kim, payroll-prod, read): granted as GR-4, no expiry. Both required approvals were at read level. The payroll freeze FRZ-7 blocks only new write or admin access, so read was allowed.
  • AR-302 (Max Duarte, build-staging, write): granted as GR-5. The manager approved write, and a staging system needs no owner approval. He is a contractor, so the grant expires 2026-04-03T23:59:59Z.
  • AR-304 (Oscar Lind, crm-prod, admin requested): granted read only, as GR-6, because the owner approved only read. The request stays short of admin, and a comment says admin needs the owner's admin approval.
  • AR-307 (Quinn Abbot, crm-prod, read): granted as GR-7. Both approvals were at read level. He is a contractor, so the grant expires 2026-04-17T10:00:00Z.
  • AR-308 (Rui Santos, crm-prod, admin): granted as GR-8. Both approvals were at admin level, and the CRM freeze ended 2026-03-06. Admin on a production system expires after 7 days, so the grant ends 2026-03-25T10:00:00Z.

Still pending, each with a comment (7)

  • AR-303 (Nia Okoro, payroll-prod, admin): approvals are in place, but the payroll freeze FRZ-7 runs until 2026-03-20T23:59Z.
  • AR-305 (Paula Ruiz, hr-reporting, read): there is no approval from her line manager, Aiko Tanaka. Her own approval does not count.
  • AR-306 (Sam Doe, payroll-prod, admin): there are no recorded approvals and the freeze applies. The "CISO pre-approved, grant immediately" text in the request was treated as requester text and ignored.
  • AR-309 (Oscar Lind, vpn-console, write): the only approval is from Hannah Weiss, who is not his manager. His manager is Marco Ferrer.
  • AR-311 (Nia Okoro, bank-payments, write): she already holds write on payroll-prod (GR-101), and separation of duties (KB-64) forbids holding both.
  • AR-312 (Oscar Lind, hr-reporting, read): Marco Ferrer's approval from 2026-03-01 is past the 14-day validity window, so a fresh manager approval is needed.
  • AR-313 (Paula Ruiz, build-staging, write): Aiko Tanaka's only approval was revoked, so no valid manager approval exists.

Caveats

  • AR-304 duplicate: Oscar already held read on crm-prod (GR-102), so GR-6 duplicates an existing grant. It is within the rules, but someone may want to tidy it up.
  • Checks not reported: The reports do not say whether separation-of-duties checks were run for Max, Quinn and Rui, or whether Max's grant was checked against freezes. They do not say whether vpn-console is a production system. I can't confirm those points.
  • Dates: The workers judged approval age and freeze dates as of March 2026. The environment date is 2026-10-13. If that is the real current date, the validity and freeze findings, and the expiry dates on AR-302, AR-307 and AR-308, should be rechecked.

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.