ScaffoldBench

RunSonnet 5.5repeat 1

Propose-select on Where ten HTTP header fields are defined

claude-sonnet-5-5__propose-select__research-header-fields__r1

Score

1.000

passed
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.679
Latency
1m 2s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.1s
Turns
73
Tool calls
68
Subagents
3
Tokens in / out
481k / 18k
368,403 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.
  • All three proposers ran: heldpropose-select.proposalsThree proposers ran in parallel, each from its own angle, and none was starved while another ran.
  • The selector chose: heldpropose-select.selectionThe selector picked a proposal by a valid number, read from its schema reply and not a default.
  • Each call was shown the right tools: heldpropose-select.toolsEach proposer was shown the read-only tools, the selector none, and the executor the full toolset.

Phases

Proposal 1 (policy-first): 0.0s to 35.6s, finished, 27 tool calls, $0.208
Proposal 2 (state-first): 0.0s to 38.5s, finished, 22 tool calls, $0.220
Proposal 3 (outcome-first): 0.0s to 29.4s, finished, 19 tool calls, $0.173
Select: 38.5s to 1m 2s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.077

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Proposal 1 (policy-first)35.6s$0.2082827claude-sonnet-5-5
Proposal 2 (state-first)38.5s$0.2202322claude-sonnet-5-5
Proposal 3 (outcome-first)29.4s$0.1732019claude-sonnet-5-5
Select23.7s$0.07720claude-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 propose-select --tasks research-header-fields --models claude-sonnet-5-5 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

  • passheader field Age
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9111

  • passheader field Cache-Control
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9111

  • passheader field Expires
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9111

  • passheader field Last-Modified
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passheader field ETag
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passheader field Location
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passheader field Retry-After
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passheader field Vary
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc9110

  • passheader field Strict-Transport-Security
    1.00weight 0.10

    quote verified in rfc6797

  • passheader field Link
    1.00weight 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":0.2956,"rfc6797":0.1707,"rfc8288":0.3292,"rfc9110":0.0545,"rfc7231":0.0038,"mdn-header-cache-control":0.0117,"mdn-header-strict-transport-security":0.0539,"rfc7232":0.0041}
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

RFC 9110 (HTTP Semantics) and RFC 9111 (HTTP Caching) are the current definitions for the core HTTP fields. RFC 9111's header says "Obsoletes: 7234". RFC 9110 obsoletes RFC 7231 and RFC 7232, and its §1.4 lists the specifications it obsoletes. Strict-Transport-Security stays in RFC 6797 and Link stays in RFC 8288. Neither page carries an "Obsoleted by" notice, and RFC 8288's header says "Obsoletes: 5988". The RFC Editor info pages could not be opened, so the status of those two is based on that absence and on a search that found no replacement. That is not conclusive.

The Age sentence wraps across lines in the page text, so it is joined with single spaces below.

{"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.