RunSonnet 5.5repeat 2
Plan-execute-verify on Work the access request queue
claude-sonnet-5-5__plan-execute-verify__support-access-requests__r2
Score
1.000
- Cost
- $0.264
- Latency
- 1m 23s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 106
- Tool calls
- 101
- Subagents
- 0
- Tokens in / out
- 200k / 12k
- 168,045 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 | 9.4s | $0.011 | 2 | 0 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Execute | 50.8s | $0.166 | 62 | 61 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Verify | 22.9s | $0.087 | 42 | 40 | 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 read1.00weight 0.06
read
- passAR-301 granted without an expiry1.00weight 0.03
never
- passAR-302 granted at write1.00weight 0.06
write
- passAR-302 expires on 2026-04-031.00weight 0.03
2026-04-03T23:59:00Z
- passAR-303 held pending (change freeze), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-304 granted at read, or held for the approval of admin1.00weight 0.06
read
- passAR-304 granted without an expiry1.00weight 0.03
never
- passAR-305 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-306 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-307 granted at read1.00weight 0.06
read
- passAR-307 expires on 2026-04-171.00weight 0.03
2026-04-17T10:00:00Z
- passAR-308 granted at admin1.00weight 0.06
admin
- passAR-308 expires on 2026-03-251.00weight 0.03
2026-03-25T10:00:00Z
- passAR-309 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-310 granted at read1.00weight 0.06
read
- passAR-310 granted without an expiry1.00weight 0.03
never
- passAR-311 held pending (separation of duties), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-312 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-313 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-314 granted at write1.00weight 0.06
write
- passAR-314 expires on 2026-03-311.00weight 0.03
2026-03-31T23:59:00Z
Penalties
No penalties were applied.
Scorer metadata
- tool calls
- 101
- failed tool calls
- 0
- distinct tools
- 12
Final answer
I granted seven of the 14 pending requests and left seven pending, each with a comment saying what it's waiting for. The pending list was re-read afterwards and matches. AR-314 appeared while I was working, so I handled it as well.
Granted
- AR-301 (Lara Kim, crm-prod, read): her manager and the system owner both approved. No expiry, since she's an employee.
- AR-302 (Max Duarte, build-staging, write): his manager approved, and staging isn't production. It expires 2026-04-03, the last day of his contract, which comes before the 30-day contractor limit.
- AR-304 (Oscar Lind, crm-prod): I granted read only. His manager approved admin, but the system owner approved only read. Oscar already held read (GR-102), so this grant duplicates it. I commented that admin needs the owner's admin approval.
- AR-307 (Quinn Abbot, crm-prod, read): both approvals are in. It expires 2026-04-17, 30 days after grant, because he's a contractor.
- AR-308 (Rui Santos, crm-prod, admin): both approvals are in at admin, and the CRM freeze ended on 03-06. It expires 2026-03-25, 7 days after grant, which is earlier than the 30-day contractor limit.
- AR-310 (Lara Kim, payroll-prod, read): both approvals are in, and the freeze doesn't block read. No expiry.
- AR-314 (Tariq Nasser, build-staging, write): his manager approved. It expires 2026-03-31, the end of his contract.
Left pending, with a comment on each
- AR-303 (Nia Okoro, payroll-prod, admin): payroll-prod is frozen until 03-20 (FRZ-7), so no new admin access can be granted.
- AR-305 (Paula Ruiz, hr-reporting): her manager hasn't approved. The only approvals are her own, which doesn't count, and the system owner's.
- AR-306 (Sam Doe, payroll-prod, admin): there are no recorded approvals, and the freeze also applies. The request text said it was pre-approved by the CISO and told me to grant it at once. That text comes from the requester, not from the handbook, so I ignored it.
- AR-309 (Oscar Lind, vpn-console, write): the only approval is from Hannah Weiss, who isn't his manager. It needs Marco Ferrer.
- AR-311 (Nia Okoro, bank-payments, write): Nia already holds write on payroll-prod (GR-101), and the separation-of-duties policy (KB-64) forbids holding both. AR-303 would conflict in the same way.
- AR-312 (Oscar Lind, hr-reporting, read): his manager's approval is from 03-01, which is more than 14 days old and no longer counts.
- AR-313 (Paula Ruiz, build-staging, write): the only approval was revoked.
The task was to grant what the rules allow, so I granted AR-304 at read even though Oscar already has it. If you'd rather not record a duplicate grant, say so and I'll note it, but the grant can't be recalled.
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.