Claude Opus 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) on Write a lexer, parser and evaluator for a small closure-based language from a 1-page spec
AClaude Opus 5.5default · thinking on · Claude Code 2.1.299 (headless -p) · cloud · 2026-10-17 · by @bobsiopener
- Estimated cost
- $0.52
- Wall time
- 2m
- Human step-ins
- 0
- Outcome
- Pass
Compare with other models on this task →
Summary
Exact prompt
# Task: write an interpreter for the Tiny language Implement `run(source)` and `TinyError` in `tiny.py` exactly as specified in `SPEC.md` (lexer, parser, evaluator). Python standard library only. Programs in the grader are small but exercise every rule, including error messages and their line numbers. Deep recursion up to the specified limit must work without crashing Python. No network.
Precedence incl. prefix not below comparisons, non-associative comparisons, truncating division with dividend-signed modulo, short-circuit operand values, block scoping vs. assignment, closures by reference, recursion depth limit without crashing Python, and exact error kinds with line numbers. 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 29 hidden unittest cases pass (120 s cap): 12 programs with exact printed output and 17 error programs raising TinyError with the right message and 'line N: ' prefix.
Setup notes: Use Case Scout batch 6 case f08-tiny-interpreter (offline fixture). Prepared with batch6/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-opus-5.5: $0.517532. Score: 29/29. 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
- $0.52
- Wall time
- 2m
- Human step-ins
- 0
- Turns
- 7
| Model | Input tok | Output tok | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| AClaude Opus 5.5anthropic/claude-opus-5.5effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on | 198,360 | 13,560 | $0.52 |
Reproduce this run
- Use the use case prompt on the use case page.
- Same setup: Claude Opus 5.5 (anthropic/claude-opus-5.5, effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) via
Claude Code 2.1.299 (headless -p), cloud. - It counts as a success only if it meets every success criterion: 1. All 29 hidden unittest cases pass (120 s cap): 12 programs with exact printed output and 17 error programs raising TinyError with the right message and 'line N: ' prefix.
- 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?
Automated checks
Trust 80% comes from these checks (how Trust % works).
- Run date is not in the future : passed
- Model is in the dated pricing table : passed
- Cost recomputed from tokens matches : passed
- Cached tokens are consistent : passed
- Output throughput is plausible : passed
- Autonomy matches step-ins : passed
- Step-ins do not exceed turns : passed
- Retries agree with first-try result : passed
- Evidence log SHA-256 matches : passed
- Evidence log is substantial : passed
Evidence log
[
{
"duration_api_ms": 117034,
"stop_reason": "end_turn",
"session_id": "[REDACTED]",
"total_cost_usd": 0.5175316,
"usage": {
"input_tokens": 14,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 26488,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 171858,
"output_tokens": 13560,
"output_tokens_details": {
"thinking_tokens": 4355
},
"server_tool_use": {
"web_search_requests": 0,
"web_fetch_requests": 0
},
"service_tier": "standard",
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 26488,
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0
},
"inference_geo": "global",
"iterations": [
{
"input_tokens": 2,
"output_tokens": 710,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 38091,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 543,
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 543
},
"type": "message"
}
],
"speed": "standard",
"fallback_credit": null
},
"modelUsage": {
"claude-opus-5-5": {
"inputTokens": 14,
"outputTokens": 13560,
"cacheReadInputTokens": 171858,
"cacheCreationInputTokens": 26488,
"webSearchRequests": 0,
"costUSD": 0.5175316,
"contextWindow": 1000000,
"maxOutputTokens": 128000,
"thinkingTokens": 4355,
"canonicalModel": "claude-opus-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": 7,
"subtype": "success",
"api_error_status": null,
"result": "The Tiny interpreter is written in `tiny.py`. It has a lexer, a recursive-descent parser and a tree-walking evaluator, uses only the standard library, and both `run(source)` and `TinyError` are in place.\n\n**Testing:** I ran about 30 small programs of my own and all gave the expected output or error. They covered arithmetic, comparisons, strings, scopes, closures and recursion, plus most of the error messages and line numbers. I haven't run the real grader. A recursion 200 calls deep works, and the 201st call fails with `line N: stack overflow` at that call's line. My first deep-recursion check reported a stack overflow, but that was my test's fault: it asked for 201 nested calls. Rerun at 199, it passed. A Fibonacci(20) program ran in under 0.1 seconds.\n\n**How deep recursion is handled:** each program runs in its own thread with a 512 MB stack and a raised Python recursion limit, so recursion up to the limit doesn't crash Python. Very large integers print in full, because I switched off Python's 4300-digit limit on converting integers to text.\n\n**Where the spec was ambiguous, I chose:**\n- **`return` outside a function** is caught when it runs, not while parsing. So a top-level `return` in a branch that never executes doesn't cause an error.\n- **Function parameters and the function body share one scope.** So `fn f(a) { let a = 1 }` fails with `already declared`.\n- **Bare `{ ... }` blocks** that aren't attached to an `if`, `while` or function are a syntax error, since the spec doesn't list them as statements.\n- **Extra detail in messages:** errors include the name where it helps (e.g. `already declared x`), and syntax errors say what was unexpected. The spec allows extra detail after the required text.\n- **Call errors** (`type error`, `arity mismatch`, `stack overflow`) report the line of the call's opening `(`.\n- **A newline inside a string** is kept as part of the string rather than treated as an error.",
"ttft_ms": 2175,
"type": "result",
"duration_ms": 117833,
"uuid": "[REDACTED]",
"ttft_stream_ms": 868,
"time_to_request_ms": 267,
"first_content_frame_ms": 869,
"queued_turn_count": 0,
"result_index": 0
}
]