RunSonnet 5.5repeat 1

Plan-execute-verify on Work the access request queue

claude-sonnet-5-5__plan-execute-verify__support-access-requests__r1

Score

1.000

passed

design ran as designed

Cost: $0.365
Latency: 1m 49s; setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns: 153
Tool calls: 145
Subagents: 0
Tokens in / out: 227k / 16k; 177,564 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 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

Spend$0.365

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

Phase	Duration	Cost	Turns	Tools	Model
Plan	8.4s	$0.013	2	0	claude-sonnet-5-5
Execute	41.0s	$0.133	55	54	claude-sonnet-5-5
Verify	23.6s	$0.091	44	42	claude-sonnet-5-5
Revise (round 1)	10.7s	$0.038	11	10	claude-sonnet-5-5
Verify revision 1	25.5s	$0.091	41	39	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 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
passAR-314 granted at write
1.00weight 0.06
write
passAR-314 expires on 2026-03-31
1.00weight 0.03
2026-03-31T23:59:59Z

Penalties

No penalties were applied.

Scorer metadata

tool calls: 145
failed tool calls: 0
distinct tools: 11

Final answer

I fixed issue 1 and left issue 2 alone, because I can't undo a grant.

Issue 1: AR-314 (Tariq Nasser, build-staging write). Fixed. I checked the request before granting it:

His line manager, Marco Ferrer (U-951), approved write in AP-21. The approval is from today, so it's inside the 14-day window.
build-staging is a staging system, so no system-owner approval is needed.
No freeze covers it. The only freezes are on crm-prod and payroll-prod.
Tariq is a contractor whose contract ends 2026-03-31. That is earlier than 30 days out, so the policy sets the expiry at the contract end.

I granted write as GR-9 with expiry 2026-03-31T23:59:59Z. He held no other grants before this.

Issue 2: AR-304, redundant crm-prod read grant (GR-5). Not changed. Oscar Lind already holds the same access as GR-102, which has no expiry. The tools I have include nothing to revoke or edit a grant. Both grants are read-only and non-expiring, so the effective access is the same as before. If you want the duplicate removed, someone with revoke rights will need to do it.

The earlier report said there were 13 pending requests when there were 14. I didn't re-check the other requests, since nothing else was flagged.

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.