RunSonnet 5.5repeat 1
Single on Twelve HTTP status codes, by the book
claude-sonnet-5-5__single__research-status-codes__r1
Score
1.000
- Cost
- $0.124
- Latency
- 26.1s
- setup 0.1s, grading 0.4s
- Turns
- 12
- Tool calls
- 11
- Subagents
- 0
- Tokens in / out
- 87k / 3.6k
- 67,603 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 | 26.1s | $0.124 | 12 | 11 | 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 research-status-codes --models claude-sonnet-5-5 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passstatus code 2031.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 2061.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 3031.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 3071.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 3081.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 4051.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 4101.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 4131.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 4141.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 4211.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 4221.00weight 0.08
quote verified in rfc9110
- passstatus code 5011.00weight 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":0.0884,"rfc7231":0.0013,"rfc9111":0.0033}
- 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
Every section I needed is in RFC 9110 (the current HTTP Semantics spec), which I've now read. Here are the results.
I used RFC 9110, "HTTP Semantics", at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html. It obsoletes RFC 7231. Each status code is defined in Section 15 of that document.
Heuristically cacheable (the spec says so in the code's own section): 203, 206, 308, 405, 410, 414 and 501.
Not heuristically cacheable (the spec makes no such statement for these): 303, 307, 413, 421 and 422. Section 15 does not call any of them heuristically cacheable, so I marked them false. The RFC 9111 caching spec has its own heuristic-caching rules. I did not open it, so this rests on RFC 9110 alone.
Reason phrases that changed from RFC 7231: 413 is now "Content Too Large" (it was "Payload Too Large"). 422 is "Unprocessable Content" (it was "Unprocessable Entity").
The page's text wraps lines. I joined the quoted sentences onto single lines.
{"answers":[{"code":"203","reason":"Non-Authoritative Information","section":"15.3.4","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"A 203 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":"206","reason":"Partial Content","section":"15.3.7","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"The 206 (Partial Content) status code indicates that the server is successfully fulfilling a range request for the target resource by transferring one or more parts of the selected representation.","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":"A 405 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":"410","reason":"Gone","section":"15.5.11","heuristicallyCacheable":true,"quote":"A 410 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":"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":"A 501 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"}]}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.