ScaffoldBench

RunSonnet 5.5repeat 1

Plan-execute on Twelve HTTP status codes, by the book

claude-sonnet-5-5__plan-execute__research-status-codes__r1

Score

1.000

passed
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.150
Latency
39.7s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.3s
Turns
12
Tool calls
9
Subagents
0
Tokens in / out
105k / 4.2k
79,689 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.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

Plan: 0.0s to 11.3s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.019
Execute: 11.3s to 39.7s, finished, 9 tool calls, $0.131

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Plan11.3s$0.01920claude-sonnet-5-5
Execute28.3s$0.131109claude-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 plan-execute --tasks research-status-codes --models claude-sonnet-5-5 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

  • passstatus code 203
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 206
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 303
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 307
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 308
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 405
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 410
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 413
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 414
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 421
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 422
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passstatus code 501
    1.00weight 0.08

    quote verified in rfc9110

Penalties

No penalties were applied.

Scorer metadata

corpus
{"version":2,"snapshot":"2026-10-01","hash":"9841e181cc36236e3bc98c18c73e938cf003a35611d0f06c8d8da6ee7161ee1f","documents":6}
opened documents
["rfc9110"]
opened by role
{"primary":["rfc9110"]}
displayed share
{"rfc9110":0.1008,"rfc9111":0.0029,"rfc7231":0.001,"mdn-status-codes":0.0181,"mdn-status-308":0.1405}
cited count
1
verified count
1
hallucinated count
0
citation integrity
1
hallucinated urls
[]
answer block
true
answer block repaired
false
items answered
12
item count
12
field accuracy
1
grounded items
12
field misses
{}

Final answer

I used RFC 9110, "HTTP Semantics" (June 2022), at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html. It is the current HTTP Semantics specification. A search turned up nothing that replaces it, but the rfc-editor.org info page returned a 404, so I couldn't check its "obsoleted by" field directly.

Section 15.1 of that page lists the heuristically cacheable codes as 200, 203, 204, 206, 300, 301, 308, 404, 405, 410, 414 and 501, and says all other codes are not heuristically cacheable. The sections for 203, 206, 308, 405, 410, 414 and 501 each say so too, and none of the other five sections do. The two sources therefore agree.

One wording difference: the 206 section says "unless otherwise indicated by explicit cache controls". The other sections say "unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls". I still treated 206 as heuristically cacheable.

Two reason phrases changed from older RFCs: 413 is "Content Too Large" and 422 is "Unprocessable Content". Reason phrases are only recommendations in the spec (15.1).

{"answers":[{"code":"203","reason":"Non-Authoritative Information","section":"15.3.4","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"This status code allows the proxy to notify recipients when a transformation has been applied, since that knowledge might impact later decisions regarding the content.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"206","reason":"Partial Content","section":"15.3.7","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"A client MUST inspect a 206 response's Content-Type and Content-Range field(s) to determine what parts are enclosed and whether additional requests are needed.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"303","reason":"See Other","section":"15.4.4","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"This status code is applicable to any HTTP method.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"307","reason":"Temporary Redirect","section":"15.4.8","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"Since the redirection can change over time, the client ought to continue using the original target URI for future requests.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"308","reason":"Permanent Redirect","section":"15.4.9","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"A 308 response is heuristically cacheable; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see Section 4.2.2 of [CACHING]).","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"405","reason":"Method Not Allowed","section":"15.5.6","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"The origin server MUST generate an Allow header field in a 405 response containing a list of the target resource's currently supported methods.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"410","reason":"Gone","section":"15.5.11","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"It is not necessary to mark all permanently unavailable resources as \"gone\" or to keep the mark for any length of time -- that is left to the discretion of the server owner.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"413","reason":"Content Too Large","section":"15.5.14","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"If the condition is temporary, the server SHOULD generate a Retry-After header field to indicate that it is temporary and after what time the client MAY try again.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"414","reason":"URI Too Long","section":"15.5.15","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"A 414 response is heuristically cacheable; i.e., unless otherwise indicated by the method definition or explicit cache controls (see Section 4.2.2 of [CACHING]).","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"421","reason":"Misdirected Request","section":"15.5.20","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"A proxy MUST NOT generate a 421 response.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"422","reason":"Unprocessable Content","section":"15.5.21","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"For example, this status code can be sent if an XML request content contains well-formed (i.e., syntactically correct), but semantically erroneous XML instructions.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"501","reason":"Not Implemented","section":"15.6.2","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"This is the appropriate response when the server does not recognize the request method and is not capable of supporting it for any resource.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.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.