Skip to content

Claude Sonnet 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) on Fix a spreadsheet formula engine (precedence, error values, static cycle detection, 5,000-cell chains without recursion errors)

AClaude Sonnet 5.5default · thinking on · Claude Code 2.1.299 (headless -p) · cloud · 2026-10-19 · by @bobsiopener

Trust 80%Fully autonomoussuccess · first try
Estimated cost
$0.19
Wall time
1m
Human step-ins
0
Outcome
Pass

Compare with other models on this task →

Summary

Exact prompt

# Task: fix the spreadsheet formula engine `sheet.py` exposes `evaluate(grid)`: it takes a sheet as a list of rows of cell strings (as read from a CSV file) and returns the computed values in the same shape. The current version gets precedence wrong, crashes on reference cycles and long dependency chains, and does not produce the error values users expect. Make it implement `SHEET_RULES.md` exactly (rewrite freely). Keep the function name and signature. Python standard library only. Do not use `eval`/`exec` on cell text. No network. `python3 sheet.py in.csv out.csv` should keep working as a command line wrapper (read CSV, evaluate, write CSV). The grader runs a hidden unittest suite that calls `evaluate` on many small grids and a few large ones and compares every output cell string exactly.

The starting engine rewrites cells into Python eval (wrong precedence for unary minus, no error values, RecursionError on cycles and long chains). Correctness needs a real parser, error propagation order, aggregate ignore-rules, a static cycle graph and iterative evaluation. Original benchmark task written for usecaserank.com (not based on a specific public post). Headless, offline run on a reproducible fixture. Each run's notes say how its cost was measured (estimates are marked).

Success criteria: 1. All 12 hidden unittest cases pass (cell kinds and output shape, references incl. AA/$, precedence and comparisons, values in arithmetic, aggregates, IF/ABS, error values and propagation order, cycles, number formatting, 5,000-cell chains both directions, 10,000-cell grid under 5 s, CLI wrapper).

Setup notes: Use Case Scout batch 7 case g12-spreadsheet-formula-engine (offline fixture). Prepared with batch7/prepare.sh; hidden key/tests kept outside the agent's work dir. Prompt = TASK.md verbatim. Scored with the scout's scorer: `python score.py WORKDIR KEYDIR`. Tools: Read/Write/Edit/Glob/Grep/Bash, web disabled. Single run, no retries. Claude Code's own reported cost for claude-sonnet-5.5: $0.194319. Score: 12/12. Cost is an ESTIMATE: measured tokens x pricing.json list price (Claude Pro subscription, nothing billed); input_tokens include cache reads and writes. Single run.

Estimated cost List-price estimate; not actually billed.

Metrics

Estimated cost
$0.19
Wall time
1m
Human step-ins
0
Turns
3
Model usage
ModelInput tokOutput tokCost
AClaude Sonnet 5.5anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on70,16511,376$0.19

Reproduce this run

  1. Use the use case prompt on the use case page.
  2. Same setup: Claude Sonnet 5.5 (anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5, effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) via Claude Code 2.1.299 (headless -p), cloud.
  3. It counts as a success only if it meets every success criterion: 1. All 12 hidden unittest cases pass (cell kinds and output shape, references incl. AA/$, precedence and comparisons, values in arithmetic, aggregates, IF/ABS, error values and propagation order, cycles, number formatting, 5,000-cell chains both directions, 10,000-cell grid under 5 s, CLI wrapper).
  4. Log model, tokens, wall time, human step-ins and the evidence log, then submit it as a reproduction. A different model? Submit a head-to-head rerun.

How runs are scored: Methodology.

Was this useful?

⇄ Rerun on another model

Automated checks

Trust 80% comes from these checks (how Trust % works).

Evidence log
[
 {
  "duration_api_ms": 80664,
  "stop_reason": "end_turn",
  "session_id": "[REDACTED]",
  "total_cost_usd": 0.1943185,
  "usage": {
   "input_tokens": 6,
   "cache_creation_input_tokens": 18854,
   "cache_read_input_tokens": 51305,
   "output_tokens": 11376,
   "output_tokens_details": {
    "thinking_tokens": 5832
   },
   "server_tool_use": {
    "web_search_requests": 0,
    "web_fetch_requests": 0
   },
   "service_tier": "standard",
   "cache_creation": {
    "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 18854,
    "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0
   },
   "inference_geo": "global",
   "iterations": [
    {
     "input_tokens": 2,
     "output_tokens": 723,
     "cache_read_input_tokens": 20642,
     "cache_creation_input_tokens": 10751,
     "cache_creation": {
      "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
      "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 10751
     },
     "type": "message"
    }
   ],
   "speed": "standard",
   "fallback_credit": null
  },
  "modelUsage": {
   "claude-sonnet-5-5": {
    "inputTokens": 6,
    "outputTokens": 11376,
    "cacheReadInputTokens": 51305,
    "cacheCreationInputTokens": 18854,
    "webSearchRequests": 0,
    "costUSD": 0.1943185,
    "contextWindow": 1000000,
    "maxOutputTokens": 128000,
    "thinkingTokens": 5832,
    "canonicalModel": "claude-sonnet-5-5",
    "provider": "firstParty",
    "costBasis": "list"
   }
  },
  "permission_denials": [],
  "terminal_reason": "completed",
  "fast_mode_state": "off",
  "fast_mode_disabled_reason": "sdk_opt_in_required",
  "subagent_stats": {
   "spawned": 0,
   "requested": {
    "background": 0,
    "foreground": 0,
    "unset": 0
   },
   "started_in_background": 0,
   "max_depth": 0,
   "spawned_by_subagents": 0,
   "completed": 0,
   "failed": 0,
   "killed": {
    "parent": 0,
    "user": 0,
    "system": 0
   },
   "refused": {
    "depth_limit": 0,
    "concurrency_limit": 0,
    "budget": 0
   },
   "by_type": {}
  },
  "safety_stops": 0,
  "is_error": false,
  "num_turns": 3,
  "subtype": "success",
  "api_error_status": null,
  "result": "I rewrote `sheet.py` to follow `SHEET_RULES.md`. I checked it only with a quick script of my own, not the hidden suite, and the checks I ran came out as expected.\n\n- **What I checked:**\n  - Precedence: `-2^2` gives 4, `2^3^2` gives 512, `2^-1` gives 0.5.\n  - Errors: `#DIV/0!`, `#NAME?`, `#ERROR!`, `#VALUE!` and `#CYCLE!` all came out correctly. `#CYCLE!` was only tested on a range that includes its own cell.\n  - Behaviour: `IF` skips the branch it doesn't take, and the aggregate functions ignore empty and text cells.\n  - Size: a 5,000-cell dependency chain evaluates in about 0.03 s with no `RecursionError`.\n- **How it works:**\n  - A tokenizer and recursive-descent parser build a syntax tree, so no `eval` or `exec` is used. Only the standard library is imported.\n  - Cycles are found with an iterative Tarjan pass, which also gives the order to evaluate cells in, so long chains never recurse.\n  - The command-line wrapper `python3 sheet.py in.csv out.csv` still works. I haven't run it on a real CSV.\n- **Judgment calls on unspecified cases:**\n  - An unknown function gives `#NAME?` even if its arguments hold errors.\n  - A range inside an unknown function is a syntax error.\n  - `(A1)` counts as a single reference in aggregates.\n  - A cell with a syntax error adds no dependency edges, so it can't be part of a cycle.\n  - Overflow in `^` returns `inf`.\n  - A negative base with a fractional exponent gives `#VALUE!`.",
  "ttft_ms": 2937,
  "type": "result",
  "duration_ms": 81064,
  "uuid": "[REDACTED]",
  "ttft_stream_ms": 2163,
  "time_to_request_ms": 261,
  "first_content_frame_ms": 2163,
  "queued_turn_count": 0,
  "result_index": 0
 }
]

Get new runs and ranking changes weekly