Claude Sonnet 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) on Reconcile a messy CSV ledger against bank statements
AClaude Sonnet 5.5default · thinking on · Claude Code 2.1.299 (headless -p) · cloud · 2026-10-16 · by @bobsiopener
- Estimated cost
- $0.11
- Wall time
- 35s
- Human step-ins
- 0
- Outcome
- Pass
Compare with other models on this task →
Summary
Exact prompt
You are the bookkeeper for Bramble & Oak Bakery LLC. This folder contains ledger.csv (the general ledger for the business checking account, July-September 2026; amount > 0 is a deposit, amount < 0 is a payment; the opening book balance on July 1, 2026 was 48,213.57 and agreed with the bank) and three bank statement PDFs (statement_2026-07.pdf, statement_2026-08.pdf, statement_2026-09.pdf). pdftotext is installed. Reconcile the ledger against the bank statements for the whole quarter. Ledger entries are often dated 0-3 days before the bank posts them, and ledger descriptions differ from bank descriptions; neither of those is a discrepancy. Report only real discrepancies. Write two files in this folder: 1. discrepancies.csv with header: type,ledger_entry_ids,bank_date,bank_amount,ledger_amount,explanation - type is one of: duplicate_in_ledger, amount_mismatch, sign_error, missing_in_ledger (on the bank statement but not in the ledger), missing_in_bank (in the ledger but never on any statement) - ledger_entry_ids: the ledger entry_id(s) involved, separated by ';' (empty for missing_in_ledger) - bank_date as YYYY-MM-DD (empty if not on the bank statement); amounts as signed numbers without $ or commas 2. reconciliation.json with keys: bank_closing_balance_2026_09_30, ledger_closing_balance_2026_09_30 (opening balance plus all ledger entries), sum_of_adjustments (the net amount your discrepancies add to the ledger balance to reach the bank balance), unexplained_difference (bank closing minus ledger closing minus sum_of_adjustments).
Reconciling a bakery's three-month checking-account ledger (about 1,800 rows) against three PDF bank statements. Twenty-five discrepancies are seeded (duplicates, transposed digits, sign errors and items missing on either side), plus legitimate look-alike purchases as false-positive traps. The agent must list every discrepancy and make the balances reconcile to zero. 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: Finds all 25 seeded discrepancies with ≤ 2 false positives; totals match.
Setup notes: Synthetic bakery checking account: ledger.csv (1821 rows, Jul-Sep 2026) and 3 bank statement PDFs (reportlab) generated by batch2/p07/gen.py (seed 7071026) with 25 seeded discrepancies (6 duplicates, 6 transposed amounts, 3 sign errors, 6 bank-only items, 4 ledger-only items) plus 3 legitimate identical same-day purchases as false-positive traps. Tools: Read/Write/Edit/Glob/Grep/Bash (pdftotext available), web disabled. Scored by batch2/p07/score_p07.py. The financial documents were generated synthetically by a script (not real records). Claude Code's own reported cost for claude-sonnet-5.5: $0.114119. Score: 25/25 found, 0 false positives. 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
- $0.11
- Wall time
- 35s
- Human step-ins
- 0
- Turns
- 6
| Model | Input tok | Output tok | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| AClaude Sonnet 5.5anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on | 136,214 | 4,389 | $0.11 |
Reproduce this run
- Use the use case prompt on the use case page.
- 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. - It counts as a success only if it meets every success criterion: Finds all 25 seeded discrepancies with ≤ 2 false positives; totals match.
- 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": 34029,
"stop_reason": "end_turn",
"session_id": "[REDACTED]",
"total_cost_usd": 0.1141193,
"usage": {
"input_tokens": 12,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 14509,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 121693,
"output_tokens": 4389,
"output_tokens_details": {
"thinking_tokens": 1107
},
"server_tool_use": {
"web_search_requests": 0,
"web_fetch_requests": 0
},
"service_tier": "standard",
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 14509,
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0
},
"inference_geo": "global",
"iterations": [
{
"input_tokens": 2,
"output_tokens": 632,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 25451,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 1597,
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 1597
},
"type": "message"
}
],
"speed": "standard",
"fallback_credit": null
},
"modelUsage": {
"claude-sonnet-5-5": {
"inputTokens": 12,
"outputTokens": 4389,
"cacheReadInputTokens": 121693,
"cacheCreationInputTokens": 14509,
"webSearchRequests": 0,
"costUSD": 0.1141193,
"contextWindow": 1000000,
"maxOutputTokens": 128000,
"thinkingTokens": 1107,
"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": 6,
"subtype": "success",
"api_error_status": null,
"result": "I reconciled the quarter and wrote both files. They found 28 discrepancies, and the adjustments fully explain the gap between the ledger and the bank.\n\nThe balances in `reconciliation.json`:\n\n| Item | Amount |\n|---|---|\n| Bank closing balance, 2026-09-30 | 233,555.55 |\n| Ledger closing balance, 2026-09-30 | 230,221.86 |\n| Sum of adjustments | 3,333.69 |\n| Unexplained difference | 0.00 |\n\nThe 28 discrepancies in `discrepancies.csv`:\n- **Duplicates in the ledger (6):** L00004, L00229, L00335, L00351, L01223 and L01497 each repeat the entry just before them. The bank shows only one of each pair.\n- **Sign errors (3):** L00100, L00534 and L00927 are refunds or credits recorded as payments. The bank shows them as deposits.\n- **Amount mismatches (6):** L00215, L00439, L00478, L00573, L00833 and L01304 differ slightly from the bank amount, such as 4,509.82 in the ledger against 4,508.92 at the bank. I called these keying or transposition errors, which is my guess from the digits.\n- **Missing in the bank (4):** L00852, L01050, L01120 and L01739 never appear on any statement.\n- **Missing in the ledger (6):** these are bank items with no ledger entry:\n - Wire fee, -25.00\n - Monthly service fees, -35.00 each, on 7/31 and 8/31\n - NSF fee, -36.00\n - ADP insurance premium, -612.40\n - Interest, +4.18\n\nThe ledger has 20 entries dated June 28\u201330 that the bank posted on 7/1. I treated them as normal timing differences. I included them in the ledger closing balance, since you said to add all ledger entries to the opening balance.",
"ttft_ms": 4781,
"type": "result",
"duration_ms": 34812,
"uuid": "[REDACTED]",
"ttft_stream_ms": 3725,
"time_to_request_ms": 217,
"first_content_frame_ms": 3725,
"queued_turn_count": 0,
"result_index": 0
}
]