Claude Opus 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) on Pick the cheaper of two carriers per parcel using dimensional weight, zones and oversize fees

AClaude Opus 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: $0.12
Wall time: 15s
Human step-ins: 0
Outcome: Pass

Compare with other models on this task →

Exact prompt

# Pick the cheaper carrier for each parcel Inputs: `parcels.json` (each parcel's length, width and height in inches, weight in pounds, destination zone) and `rates.json` (two carriers' rate cards). Rules, applied per carrier: - Dimensional weight = length x width x height / that carrier's dim_divisor, rounded UP to a whole pound. - Actual weight is rounded UP to a whole pound. - Billable weight = the larger of the rounded actual weight and the dimensional weight. - Price = zone base price (covers the first pound) + per_lb for the zone x (billable weight - 1). - Add the carrier's oversize_fee when the parcel's longest side is over the carrier's oversize_longest_in (strictly greater). - Choose the carrier with the lower price; if both are equal, choose the carrier listed first in rates.json. Write `out/shipping.json`: `{"parcels": {"<parcel_id>": {"billable_lb": {"<carrier>": <int>, ...}, "price_usd": {"<carrier>": <usd>, ...}, "choice": "<carrier>"}, ...}, "total_usd": <sum of chosen prices>}`. ## How this run works - Work on your own: nobody will answer questions in this task, and writing to `ask/` counts against the run. - Write only under `out/`. Create `out/` if it is missing. Inputs are synthetic; don't fetch anything from the network. - Scoring is partial credit: each listed check is pass/fail, and the score is the share passed. Numbers are compared to within 0.005 unless the task says otherwise.

Price 10-15 parcels on two carriers' rate cards using dimensional weight with each carrier's own divisor, whole-pound rounding up, zone pricing and an oversize fee above a longest-side threshold, then choose the cheaper carrier per parcel. Parcels exactly at an oversize threshold and exact price ties are redrawn. All prices are whole cents, so no rounding ties arise. 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: billable_weights dimensional_weight_applied prices oversize_fees carrier_choice total

Setup notes: Batch 16 case r07-parcel-rate-shopping (offline, synthetic inputs, seed 1941230038). Autonomous case: no stand-in user and no step-ins expected; any file the solver wrote to ask/ is counted as a measured intervention (0) and blocks a pass. Prompt = TASK.md verbatim. Hidden key kept outside the solver's work dir. Scored with the case's scorer (python3 score.py WORKDIR KEYDIR, absolute paths); pass = every check true and no ask/ files. Tools: Read/Write/Edit/Glob/Grep/Bash, web disabled. Single run, no retries. 1-min load average at scoring 0.21 (8 cores). Claude Code's own reported cost for claude-opus-5.5: $0.117182. Score: 6/6. 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: $0.12
Wall time: 15s
Human step-ins: 0
Turns: 3

Model usage
Model	Input tok	Output tok	Cost
AClaude Opus 5.5anthropic/claude-opus-5.5effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on	60,081	1,418	$0.12

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: billable_weights dimensional_weight_applied prices oversize_fees carrier_choice total
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": 13448,
  "stop_reason": "end_turn",
  "session_id": "[REDACTED]",
  "total_cost_usd": 0.1171822,
  "usage": {
   "input_tokens": 6,
   "cache_creation_input_tokens": 9844,
   "cache_read_input_tokens": 50231,
   "output_tokens": 1418,
   "output_tokens_details": {
    "thinking_tokens": 147
   },
   "server_tool_use": {
    "web_search_requests": 0,
    "web_fetch_requests": 0
   },
   "service_tier": "standard",
   "cache_creation": {
    "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 9844,
    "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0
   },
   "inference_geo": "global",
   "iterations": [
    {
     "input_tokens": 2,
     "output_tokens": 505,
     "cache_read_input_tokens": 20092,
     "cache_creation_input_tokens": 1898,
     "cache_creation": {
      "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
      "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 1898
     },
     "type": "message"
    }
   ],
   "speed": "standard",
   "fallback_credit": null
  },
  "modelUsage": {
   "claude-opus-5-5": {
    "inputTokens": 6,
    "outputTokens": 1418,
    "cacheReadInputTokens": 50231,
    "cacheCreationInputTokens": 9844,
    "webSearchRequests": 0,
    "costUSD": 0.1171822,
    "contextWindow": 1000000,
    "maxOutputTokens": 128000,
    "thinkingTokens": 147,
    "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": 3,
  "subtype": "success",
  "api_error_status": null,
  "result": "I wrote `out/shipping.json` covering all 14 parcels. The chosen prices add up to **$727.75**.\n\n- **Swiftbox is cheaper for 11 parcels:** P01\u2013P09, P11 and P13.\n- **Parcelia is cheaper for 3 parcels:**\n  - P10: $34.32 against $34.71.\n  - P12: $59.28 against $65.28.\n  - P14: $72.56 against $77.66, even with a $20 oversize fee on each carrier.\n- **No ties:** no parcel cost the same with both carriers, so the \"listed first\" rule never applied.\n\nA few points on how the rules played out:\n\n- **Dimensional weight:** Parcelia's divisor is lower (139 against Swiftbox's 194), so its dimensional weight came out higher. For P03, P04, P06 and P11 that meant a higher billable weight than Swiftbox.\n- **Oversize fees:** The longest side is the largest of the three measurements, not just the length. Parcelia charged its oversize fee on P02, P07, P13 and P14 (longest side over 48 in). Swiftbox charged its fee only on P02 and P14 (over 60 in).\n- **Rounding:** I did the money arithmetic in exact decimals, so there's no floating-point drift. I rounded prices to cents only when writing the file.",
  "ttft_ms": 2072,
  "type": "result",
  "duration_ms": 13778,
  "uuid": "[REDACTED]",
  "ttft_stream_ms": 953,
  "time_to_request_ms": 243,
  "first_content_frame_ms": 953,
  "queued_turn_count": 0,
  "result_index": 0
 }
]