ScaffoldBench

RunSonnet 5.5repeat 2

Single on Twelve HTTP status codes, by the book

claude-sonnet-5-5__single__research-status-codes__r2

Score

1.000

passed
design ran as designed
Cost
$0.114
Latency
27.9s
setup 0.0s, grading 0.3s
Turns
10
Tool calls
9
Subagents
0
Tokens in / out
82k / 3.4k
63,944 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.
  • Each call was shown the right tools: heldsingle.toolsThe agent was shown exactly the task’s tools, none missing and none extra.

Phases

Main: 0.0s to 27.9s, finished, 9 tool calls, $0.114

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

PhaseDurationCostTurnsToolsModel
Main27.9s$0.114109claude-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 single --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":0.0735,"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 read RFC 9110 (HTTP Semantics, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html) and took each status code's reason phrase and section number from its own subsection of Section 15. I found no newer HTTP Semantics RFC in my search, so I treated RFC 9110 as the current specification.

Cacheability. Section 15.1 of the spec lists the codes defined as heuristically cacheable: "200, 203, 204, 206, 300, 301, 308, 404, 405, 410, 414, and 501". It adds that all other status codes are not heuristically cacheable. Of your twelve codes, 203, 206, 308, 405, 410, 414 and 501 are cacheable. Each of those sections also says "A NNN response is heuristically cacheable" in its own text. Codes 303, 307, 413, 421 and 422 are not on the list.

Reason phrases. Two differ from what older RFCs used: 413 is now "Content Too Large" and 422 is "Unprocessable Content".

Quotes. Where a quote runs across a line break in the RFC's plain-text layout, I joined it with single spaces. The sentence itself is unchanged.

{"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":"A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the origin server does not have a representation of the target resource that can be transferred by the server over HTTP.","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html"},{"code":"307","reason":"Temporary Redirect","section":"15.4.8","heuristicallyCacheable":false,"quote":"The server SHOULD generate a Location header field in the response containing a URI reference for the different URI.","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":"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":"The server MAY terminate the request, if the protocol version in use allows it; otherwise, the server MAY close the connection.","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.