RunSonnet 5.5repeat 1
Plan-execute on Audit a week of baggage fees
claude-sonnet-5-5__plan-execute__airline-baggage-audit__r1
Score
0.716
- Cost
- $0.226
- Latency
- 1m 6s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 88
- Tool calls
- 85
- Subagents
- 0
- Tokens in / out
- 190k / 10k
- 165,018 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.planThe planner’s reply was read through its schema and held at least one step.
- Each call was shown the right tools: heldplan-execute.toolsThe planner was shown no tools and the executor the task’s 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 | 10.6s | $0.016 | 2 | 0 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Execute | 55.7s | $0.210 | 86 | 85 | 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 --tasks airline-baggage-audit --models claude-sonnet-5-5 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passL2 (R8124): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL2: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL3 (R8125): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 12000 of an expected 12000
- passL3: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL4 (R8112): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL4: audit outcome recorded as undercharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL5 (R8116): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 5500 of an expected 5500
- passL5: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL6 (R8117): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL6: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL7 (R8118): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 4500 of an expected 4500
- passL7: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- failL8 (R8120): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any0.00weight 0.04
refunded 7500 of an expected 0
- failL8: audit outcome recorded as correct0.00weight 0.02
- passL9 (R8126): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL9: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL10 (R8113): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 7500 of an expected 7500
- passL10: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL11 (R8115): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL11: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL12 (R8122): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL12: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- failL13 (R8123): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any0.00weight 0.04
refunded 4500 of an expected 0
- failL13: audit outcome recorded as correct0.00weight 0.02
- passL15 (R8119): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 2500 of an expected 2500
- passL15: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL16 (R8110): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL16: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL17 (R8111): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL17: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL18 (R8114): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL18: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL19 (R8114): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 5000 of an expected 5000
- passL19: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL20 (R8121): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL20: audit outcome recorded as undercharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL21 (R8122): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL21: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
Penalties
- policy violationRefunded more than a charge was overcharged×0.8
Refunded beyond the overcharge: L8, L13.
Scorer metadata
- tool calls
- 85
- failed tool calls
- 0
- distinct tools
- 11
Final answer
I audited all 19 baggage fees posted 2026-07-20 to 2026-07-26 and annotated each one. Eight were overcharged and refunded, two were undercharged, and nine were correct. I didn't re-list the ledger afterwards, but each tool call confirmed its own change.
How I judged them: Each fee was checked against the allowances and prices in force on its posting date, using the passenger's tier on that date.
- Bulletin PB-2026-13 raised the first chargeable bag from 4500 to 5000 cents from 2026-07-23. The baggage rules tool still shows 4500, so I applied the bulletin to fees posted on or after that date.
- Two tier changes mattered: Jakob Weiss (R8125) was gold on 07-20, and Tara Singh (R8117) was still silver on 07-21. I used the tier as of each posting date.
Overcharged, refunded to the original payment method (8 refunds, 44,500 cents in total):
| Entry | Reservation | Refund | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| L3 | R8125 | 12,000 | Gold allowance covered all 3 bags |
| L5 | R8116 | 5,500 | Overcharged 7,500; a 2,000 courtesy refund (L24) had already been paid, so I refunded the remaining 5,500 |
| L7 | R8118 | 4,500 | Silver economy allowance covered both bags |
| L8 | R8120 | 7,500 | Correct fee was 4,500 |
| L10 | R8113 | 7,500 | Correct fee was 4,500 |
| L13 | R8123 | 4,500 | Allowance covered all 3 bags |
| L15 | R8119 | 2,500 | Correct fee was 5,000 under the bulletin |
| L19 | R8114 | 5,000 | Duplicate of L18, refunded in full |
Undercharged, not re-billed: L4 on R8112 was charged 9,000 and should have been 12,000. L20 on R8121 was charged 4,500 and should have been 5,000.
Correct: L2, L6, L9, L11, L12, L16, L17, L18 and L21. L21 is a separate 7,500 charge on R8122 for a different bag from L12, not a duplicate.
One caveat: get_payment_status returned "no payment instrument on file" for every refunded reservation. That doesn't say the instrument is inactive, and the courtesy refund on R8116 had already gone to the original payment method. I therefore refunded to the original payment method as the audit rule says, rather than issuing travel credit. Finance may want to confirm those refunds landed.
I didn't touch any queue requests.
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.