RunSonnet 5.5repeat 2
Plan-execute-verify on Where ten HTTP header fields are defined
claude-sonnet-5-5__plan-execute-verify__research-header-fields__r2
Score
1.000
- Cost
- $0.283
- Latency
- 56.2s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.1s
- Turns
- 39
- Tool calls
- 34
- Subagents
- 0
- Tokens in / out
- 186k / 6.9k
- 134,225 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 plan was a plan: heldplan-execute-verify.planThe planner’s reply was read through its schema and held at least one step.
- Every verdict was read: heldplan-execute-verify.verdictsEvery review round ended with a verdict read from the schema reply, not a default.
- The loop did what its verdicts said: heldplan-execute-verify.loopEvery verdict that called for a revision got one, and nothing was revised without such a verdict.
- Each call was shown the right tools: heldplan-execute-verify.toolsThe planner was shown no tools, the verifier the read-only ones, and the executor and reviser the full toolset.
Phases
Drawn from the phase records: timing and cost per call, no tool calls or messages.
| Phase | Duration | Cost | Turns | Tools | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plan | 10.9s | $0.015 | 2 | 0 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Execute | 28.6s | $0.212 | 23 | 22 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Verify | 16.7s | $0.056 | 14 | 12 | 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 plan-execute-verify --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
- ["rfc9111","rfc6797","rfc8288","rfc9110"]
- opened by role
- {"primary":["rfc9111","rfc6797","rfc8288","rfc9110"]}
- displayed share
- {"rfc9111":0.2953,"rfc6797":0.146,"rfc8288":0.3412,"rfc9110":0.0537,"rfc7234":0.0033,"mdn-header-strict-transport-security":0.0223,"rfc7232":0.0041,"rfc7231":0.0012}
- 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
All ten fields are defined in five current RFCs. I read each definition on the RFC's own page, and each quote below is copied from that page.
I couldn't check obsolescence directly, because the rfc-editor.org /info/ pages (RFC 6797, 8288, 9111 and 9110) all returned 404. Instead I relied on the RFC texts and a search. RFC 9111 says it obsoletes RFC 7234. RFC 8288 says it obsoletes RFC 5988. RFC 9110's table also lists the older RFCs it replaces. The search turned up no later RFC that replaces 9110, 9111, 6797 or 8288. This is weaker evidence than the "Obsoleted by" line on the info pages, so a newer replacement is unlikely but not ruled out. I found no sources that disagree with each other.
- Age, Cache-Control, Expires are in RFC 9111, sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9111.html
- Last-Modified, ETag, Location, Retry-After, Vary are in RFC 9110, sections 8.8.2, 8.8.3, 10.2.2, 10.2.3 and 12.5.5: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html
- Strict-Transport-Security is in RFC 6797, section 6.1: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6797.html
- Link is in RFC 8288, section 3, "Link Serialisation in HTTP Headers": https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8288.html
The plan said to check these RFCs' status on the /info/ pages, but those pages weren't available, so I used the approach above instead. The expected section numbers all matched the headings on the pages.
{"answers":[
{"field":"Age","rfc":"9111","section":"5.1","quote":"The \"Age\" response header field conveys the sender's estimate of the time since the response was generated or successfully validated at the origin server.","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":"The \"ETag\" field in a response provides the current entity tag for the selected representation, as determined at the conclusion of handling the request.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"field":"Location","rfc":"9110","section":"10.2.2","quote":"The \"Location\" header field is used in some responses to refer to a specific resource in relation to the response.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},
{"field":"Retry-After","rfc":"9110","section":"10.2.3","quote":"Servers send the \"Retry-After\" header field to indicate how long the user agent ought to wait before making a follow-up request.","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.