Skip to content

Claude Haiku 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) on Find your own listings on people-search pages and draft opt-out requests for approval

AClaude Haiku 5.5default · thinking on · Claude Code 2.1.299 (headless -p) · cloud · 2026-10-20 · by @bobsiopener

Trust 80%Fully autonomoussuccess · first try
Estimated cost
$0.03
Wall time
2m
Human step-ins
0
Outcome
Pass

Compare with other models on this task →

Summary

Exact prompt

# Find your own listings on (synthetic) people-search sites and draft opt-out requests Everything here is synthetic and offline: `person.json` describes one made-up person (the "user"); `broker_1.html` .. `broker_6.html` are saved result pages from six made-up people-search sites, each with its own layout. Write `solve.py` (Python 3 standard library only). `python solve.py input.json answer.json` (first argument unused; read the files from the current directory) writes `answer.json` and one draft file per site that lists the user. Fresh people and pages are generated when scoring. Nothing is sent or submitted: you only write files. ## Reading the pages 1. A record's ID is in `data-record-id` (table rows), `Record #<ID>` (cards) or `id="rec-<ID>"` (definition lists). A record has a primary name, optional aliases (`AKA:`, `Also known as:`, `Alias`), an optional age field, addresses, phones and emails. 2. Each page's footer gives the removal address (the `privacy@` mailto link); the other mailto is not for removals. ## Matching rules (a record is the user's when 3, 4 and 5 hold) 3. Name: the primary name **or any alias** matches. Normalise: lower-case, drop `.` and `'`, hyphens become spaces. `Last, First Middle` (has a comma) is reordered to First Middle Last. Drop single-letter tokens (initials) and any token equal to the user's middle name. The first token must equal the legal first name or one of its `nicknames`; the remaining tokens joined by spaces must equal the normalised legal last name or a `former_last_names` entry. 4. At least one corroborating detail: (a) age: `Age N`, `Age: N` or `N yrs` with |N - true age on as_of| <= 1, or `Born YYYY` with |YYYY - birth year| <= 1; (b) an address equal to one of the user's (rule 6); (c) a phone whose digits equal one of the user's (drop a leading country code 1); (d) an email equal to one of the user's after lower-casing (for gmail.com also ignore dots and anything from `+` in the local part). 5. No contradiction: if the record shows an age or birth year that fails rule 4(a), it is not the user (a relative at the same address, for example). 6. Address equality: take the text before the first comma as the street line; remove unit parts (`#X`, or `apt`/`apartment`/`unit`/`suite`/`ste` plus the next token); lower-case, drop `.`, map words with `street_abbreviations`; the token lists must be equal and the first five digits of the ZIP (the last 5-digit group, ZIP+4 allowed) must match. City and unit are ignored. Build the user's own addresses from `number`, `dir`, `name`, `type`, `zip` the same way. ## Draft files (only for sites with at least one matching record) `optout_broker_N.txt`: header lines, a blank line, then the body. Headers: `To: <the site's privacy@ address>`, `Subject: ...`, `X-Draft-Status: not sent`. The body names the user by legal first and last name (e.g. `Margaret Okafor-Reyes`) and lists every matching record ID for that site. Data minimisation: never include the date of birth (in any common format) or `ssn_last4`, and include a phone or email only if that site already shows it in a matched record. Do not write a file for a site with no match. ## answer.json `{"matches": {"broker_1": [record IDs], ... all six keys}, "submitted": false}`. solve.py must not use any network or sending capability (no smtplib, socket, urllib, http.client, requests, httpx, aiohttp, webbrowser or subprocess). ## Scoring Hidden checks (partial credit; all must pass): `no_false_positive_records`, `no_missed_records`, `draft_files_headers_ids`, `draft_privacy_minimization`, `offline_nothing_submitted` on the given pages; `fresh_run_1`, `fresh_run_2` (matches and drafts on new pages). 30-second limit per run.

Name-only matching finds plenty of records and most of them are wrong; the stated corroboration and contradiction rules separate careful solvers. 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. no_false_positive_records 2. no_missed_records 3. draft_files_headers_ids 4. draft_privacy_minimization 5. offline_nothing_submitted 6. fresh_run_1 7. fresh_run_2

Setup notes: Use Case Scout batch 13 case n03-broker-optout-drafts (offline, synthetic fixture). Prepared with batch13/prepare.sh; hidden key/checker kept outside the agent's work dir (temp dir during the run). Prompt = TASK.md verbatim. Scored with the case's scorer: `python score.py WORKDIR KEYDIR` (python3, run from the case dir). Tools: Read/Write/Edit/Glob/Grep/Bash, web disabled. Single run, no retries. 1-min load average at scoring 0.05 (8 cores). Claude Code's own reported cost for claude-haiku-5.5: $0.02934. Score: 7/7. 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
$0.03
Wall time
2m
Human step-ins
0
Turns
12
Model usage
ModelInput tokOutput tokCost
AClaude Haiku 5.5anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on259,81534,244$0.03

Reproduce this run

  1. Use the use case prompt on the use case page.
  2. Same setup: Claude Haiku 5.5 (anthropic/claude-haiku-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. no_false_positive_records 2. no_missed_records 3. draft_files_headers_ids 4. draft_privacy_minimization 5. offline_nothing_submitted 6. fresh_run_1 7. fresh_run_2
  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": 146069,
  "stop_reason": "end_turn",
  "session_id": "[REDACTED]",
  "total_cost_usd": 0.029339600000000004,
  "usage": {
   "input_tokens": 12,
   "cache_creation_input_tokens": 50623,
   "cache_read_input_tokens": 209180,
   "output_tokens": 34244,
   "output_tokens_details": {
    "thinking_tokens": 28110
   },
   "server_tool_use": {
    "web_search_requests": 0,
    "web_fetch_requests": 0
   },
   "service_tier": "standard",
   "cache_creation": {
    "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 50623,
    "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0
   },
   "inference_geo": "global",
   "iterations": [
    {
     "input_tokens": 2,
     "output_tokens": 907,
     "cache_read_input_tokens": 61716,
     "cache_creation_input_tokens": 1446,
     "cache_creation": {
      "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
      "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 1446
     },
     "type": "message"
    }
   ],
   "speed": "standard",
   "fallback_credit": null
  },
  "modelUsage": {
   "claude-haiku-5-5": {
    "inputTokens": 12,
    "outputTokens": 34244,
    "cacheReadInputTokens": 209180,
    "cacheCreationInputTokens": 50623,
    "webSearchRequests": 0,
    "costUSD": 0.029339600000000004,
    "contextWindow": 1000000,
    "maxOutputTokens": 128000,
    "thinkingTokens": 28110,
    "canonicalModel": "claude-haiku-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": 12,
  "subtype": "success",
  "api_error_status": null,
  "result": "I wrote `solve.py` and ran it on the given pages. It finds 15 listings across the six sites and writes six opt-out drafts. Nothing was sent.\n\n| Site | Matched record IDs |\n|---|---|\n| broker_1 | 1X73225, 1Q83866, 1K61851 |\n| broker_2 | 2X38034, 2Q33906, 2Q13340, 2K80687 |\n| broker_3 | 3K22349 |\n| broker_4 | 4Z85881, 4X89558, 4Z38181 |\n| broker_5 | 5Z51572, 5X28678 |\n| broker_6 | 6Z45279 |\n\nI checked these by hand against the rules and they agree. Several near-misses are rejected on purpose. Records with a contradicting age or birth year are excluded even when the address matches, such as the \"Age 54\" and \"Born 1984\" records. A \"Maro Ann Van Der Berg\" record with the user's gmail is excluded because the first name doesn't match.\n\n**Files written** (in the working directory):\n- `answer.json` with all six `broker_N` keys and `\"submitted\": false`.\n- `optout_broker_1.txt` to `optout_broker_6.txt`. Each has `To:` set to that site's `privacy@` address, `Subject:`, `X-Draft-Status: not sent`, a blank line, and a body that names \"Margaret Van Der Berg\" and lists the record IDs. The drafts leave out the date of birth, `ssn_last4`, phone and email. Leaving out the phone and email is always allowed under the minimisation rule, so I chose that over including them when a site shows them.\n\n**Choices I made:**\n- The script reads `person.json` and `broker_N.html` from the current directory, ignores the first argument, and takes `answer.json` from the second argument if given.\n- Drafts go in the current directory, not next to `answer.json`. The spec doesn't say which, so tell me if they should go elsewhere.\n- On a re-run, a stale `optout_broker_N.txt` is deleted for any site that no longer matches, so the no-match rule holds.\n- The parser handles all three layouts (table rows, cards, definition lists) in one pass, so layout changes on fresh pages shouldn't break it. I only tested it on these six pages, not on newly generated ones.\n\nThe script uses only `html`, `json`, `os`, `re`, `sys` and `datetime`. It runs in well under the 30-second limit. I ran it with `python3 -I`.",
  "ttft_ms": 1879,
  "type": "result",
  "duration_ms": 146485,
  "uuid": "[REDACTED]",
  "ttft_stream_ms": 1633,
  "time_to_request_ms": 259,
  "first_content_frame_ms": 1634,
  "queued_turn_count": 0,
  "result_index": 0
 }
]

Get new runs and ranking changes weekly