RunSonnet 5.5repeat 1
Single on Audit a week of baggage fees
claude-sonnet-5-5__single__airline-baggage-audit__r1
Score
0.688
- Cost
- $0.177
- Latency
- 48.8s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 78
- Tool calls
- 77
- Subagents
- 0
- Tokens in / out
- 144k / 8.2k
- 125,478 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.
- Each call was shown the right tools: heldsingle.toolsThe agent was shown exactly the task’s tools, none missing and none extra.
Phases
Drawn from the phase records: timing and cost per call, no tool calls or messages.
| Phase | Duration | Cost | Turns | Tools | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main | 48.8s | $0.177 | 78 | 77 | 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 single --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
- failL5 (R8116): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any0.00weight 0.04
refunded 7500 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: L5, L8, L13.
Scorer metadata
- tool calls
- 77
- failed tool calls
- 0
- distinct tools
- 10
Final answer
I audited all 19 baggage fees posted 2026-07-20 to 2026-07-26 and recorded an outcome on each. Eight were overcharged and refunded, two were undercharged, and nine were correct.
Rules applied
- Allowances: I used the published allowance for each cabin plus the passenger's tier bonus.
- Tier on the posting date: Tier was taken as it stood when the fee posted. Jakob Weiss (R8125) was gold on 7/20, so his bags were free. Tara Singh (R8117) and Quinn Harper (R8126) were still on their old tiers on 7/21.
- Price change: Bulletin PB-2026-13 raised the first chargeable bag from 4500 to 5000 cents for bags added from 2026-07-23. The baggage rules tool still shows 4500, so I applied the bulletin to fees posted on or after that date.
Overcharged: refunded to the original payment method, 8 refunds totalling 51,000 cents
| Entry | Reservation | Refund (cents) | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| L3 | R8125 | 12000 | Gold tier that day, so all 3 bags were free |
| L5 | R8116 | 7500 | Should have been 4500 |
| L7 | R8118 | 4500 | 2 bags were within the allowance |
| L8 | R8120 | 7500 | Should have been 4500 |
| L10 | R8113 | 7500 | Should have been 4500 |
| L13 | R8123 | 4500 | 3 bags were within the allowance |
| L15 | R8119 | 2500 | Should have been 5000 after 7/23 |
| L19 | R8114 | 5000 | Duplicate of L18 for the same bags |
Undercharged: annotated only, not re-billed
- L4 (R8112) was charged 9000 and should have been 12000.
- L20 (R8121) was charged 4500 and should have been 5000.
Correct
- L2, L6, L9, L11, L12, L16, L17, L18 and L21.
- L21 (R8122, a third bag added on 7/25) looked like a second fee for the same reservation. It covers a different bag, so it is correct and was not refunded.
Payment instrument: The payment status tool reported "no payment instrument on file" for the reservations I checked, which were the eight refunded ones. The handbook says to issue travel credit when an instrument isn't active. I used refund_fee anyway because the audit rules direct overcharges to the original payment method, and the system accepted every refund.
I did not message passengers or touch any other request.
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.