Claude Sonnet 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) on Debt avalanche vs snowball schedule to the cent

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

Trust 80%Fully autonomoussuccess · first tryCompare

Estimated cost: $0.06
Wall time: 21s
Human step-ins: 0
Outcome: Pass

Compare with other models on this task →

Exact prompt

# Debt avalanche vs snowball, to the cent `input.json` lists debts and a fixed monthly budget (synthetic). Write `solve.py` (Python 3 standard library only) so that `python solve.py input.json answer.json` simulates both payoff methods month by month. We re-run it on fresh inputs, so do not hard-code anything. ## Input `debts`: list of `{"name", "balance", "apr" (yearly percent, e.g. 21.99), "min_payment"}`; `monthly_budget` (total paid each month, including minimums). ## Rules 1. Work in exact cents (use `decimal.Decimal`; convert input numbers with `Decimal(str(x))`). Round with ROUND_HALF_UP to 0.01. 2. If `monthly_budget` < the sum of all minimum payments, the whole answer is `{"error": "budget_below_minimums"}`. 3. Target order (fixed at the start, using the original balances): **avalanche** = highest apr first, ties by smaller balance, then name; **snowball** = smallest balance first, ties by higher apr, then name. 4. Each month, in this order: (a) every debt with a positive balance gets interest = round(balance * apr / 1200) added to its balance; (b) in input order, each debt with a positive balance is paid min(min_payment, balance) from the budget; (c) whatever is left of the budget goes to debts in target order: pay min(left, balance) to the first target with a positive balance, then any remainder to the next, and so on in the same month. Any budget still left at the end of the month is not used. 5. `payoff_month[name]` = the month number (first month = 1) at whose end the debt's balance is 0. `months` = month at which all are 0. If debts remain after month 600, that method's result is `{"error": "not_paid_off"}`. 6. `total_interest` = all interest added; `total_paid` = all payments. `interest_saved_by_avalanche` = snowball total_interest - avalanche total_interest (only when both methods finish). ## Output `answer.json`: `{"avalanche": R, "snowball": R, "interest_saved_by_avalanche": x}` with R = `{"months", "total_interest", "total_paid", "payoff_month": {name: month}, "order": [names in target order]}`. Money as numbers with 2 decimals. ## Scoring Hidden checks (partial credit = fraction passed; all must pass), money within 0.011, months and orders exact: `orders`, `avalanche_totals`, `snowball_totals`, `payoff_months` (and interest saved) on the given input; `fresh_run_1`, `fresh_run_2` (whole answer on fresh inputs, which can contain 0% debts and equal balances); `budget_below_minimums` (a fresh input whose budget is too small). Each run has a 60-second limit.

Cent rounding of monthly interest, minimums before extra, same-month rollover of leftover money, tie rules for 0% debts and equal balances, and the budget-below-minimums error. 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).

These are synthetic test cases for comparing AI models, not financial advice.

Success criteria: 1. orders 2. avalanche_totals 3. snowball_totals 4. payoff_months 5. fresh_run_1 6. fresh_run_2 7. budget_below_minimums

Setup notes: Use Case Scout batch 9 case j07-debt-avalanche-snowball (offline fixture). Prepared with batch9/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: $0.058137. 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: $0.06
Wall time: 21s
Human step-ins: 0
Turns: 4

Model usage
Model	Input tok	Output tok	Cost
AClaude Sonnet 5.5anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on	79,317	1,812	$0.06

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: 1. orders 2. avalanche_totals 3. snowball_totals 4. payoff_months 5. fresh_run_1 6. fresh_run_2 7. budget_below_minimums
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).

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": 20074,
  "stop_reason": "end_turn",
  "session_id": "[REDACTED]",
  "total_cost_usd": 0.058136600000000004,
  "usage": {
   "input_tokens": 8,
   "cache_creation_input_tokens": 8223,
   "cache_read_input_tokens": 71086,
   "output_tokens": 1812,
   "output_tokens_details": {
    "thinking_tokens": 122
   },
   "server_tool_use": {
    "web_search_requests": 0,
    "web_fetch_requests": 0
   },
   "service_tier": "standard",
   "cache_creation": {
    "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 8223,
    "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0
   },
   "inference_geo": "global",
   "iterations": [
    {
     "input_tokens": 2,
     "output_tokens": 409,
     "cache_read_input_tokens": 20530,
     "cache_creation_input_tokens": 232,
     "cache_creation": {
      "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
      "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 232
     },
     "type": "message"
    }
   ],
   "speed": "standard",
   "fallback_credit": null
  },
  "modelUsage": {
   "claude-sonnet-5-5": {
    "inputTokens": 8,
    "outputTokens": 1812,
    "cacheReadInputTokens": 71086,
    "cacheCreationInputTokens": 8223,
    "webSearchRequests": 0,
    "costUSD": 0.058136600000000004,
    "contextWindow": 1000000,
    "maxOutputTokens": 128000,
    "thinkingTokens": 122,
    "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": 4,
  "subtype": "success",
  "api_error_status": null,
  "result": "I wrote `solve.py` and ran it on `input.json`. It wrote `answer.json` with no errors. I haven't checked the figures against an independent calculation.\n\n| Method | Months | Total interest | Total paid |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Avalanche | 38 | 15,924.12 | 107,708.85 |\n| Snowball | 41 | 23,082.79 | 114,867.52 |\n\nAvalanche saves 7,158.67 in interest on this input.\n\nThe script follows your rules: exact cents with `Decimal`, ROUND_HALF_UP, and the `budget_below_minimums` check. It also returns `not_paid_off` for a method that is still unpaid after month 600. The target orders use the original balances. 0% debts and equal balances go through the same tie-break logic. I only ran the one given input, so those cases and the error paths haven't been exercised.\n\nYour spec doesn't cover a debt that starts with a zero balance. I give it a `payoff_month` of 0, and `months` is 0 if every debt starts at zero. Say if you want it handled differently.\n\nOn this machine the command is `python3`, not `python`. `python` isn't installed here, so `python solve.py ...` fails here. Your runner may differ.",
  "ttft_ms": 3590,
  "type": "result",
  "duration_ms": 20454,
  "uuid": "[REDACTED]",
  "ttft_stream_ms": 3171,
  "time_to_request_ms": 244,
  "first_content_frame_ms": 3172,
  "queued_turn_count": 0,
  "result_index": 0
 }
]