Claude Sonnet 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) on Entity resolution on ~950 merged customer records (nicknames, swaps, aliases, phone formats) without merging households
AClaude Sonnet 5.5default · thinking on · Claude Code 2.1.299 (headless -p) · cloud · 2026-10-17 · by @bobsiopener
- Estimated cost
- $0.09
- Wall time
- 35s
- Human step-ins
- 0
- Outcome
- Partial
Compare with other models on this task →
Summary
Exact prompt
# Task: deduplicate the customer list `customers.csv` (~950 rows) was merged from several systems, so many real customers appear 2-4 times with inconsistent data: nicknames (Bob/Robert), typos, initials, first/last name swapped, case differences, email aliases (`+tag`) or missing emails, phone numbers in many formats or missing, street suffix abbreviations (Street/St), and so on. Watch out: members of the same household can share a phone number and address but are different people, and different people can share a common name. Write `dedupe.py` (Python stdlib only) that reads `customers.csv` from the current directory and writes `clusters.json`: a JSON list of clusters, each a list of record `id`s that belong to the same person. Every id must appear in exactly one cluster (singletons included). Run it. Grading is by pairwise precision and recall (over all pairs of records placed in the same cluster) against the true clusters (both must be >= 0.95), and `dedupe.py` is re-run on a freshly generated file of the same kind, so don't hard-code ids. No network.
Email-only matching gets ~0.59 recall; adding phone gets ~0.84 precision because households share phones. Passing both thresholds needs normalisation plus name-compatibility rules (nicknames, initials, transpositions, swapped fields), and the fresh-seed rerun blocks hard-coding. 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. clusters_valid_partition: clusters.json lists every record id exactly once. 2. precision_ok: pairwise precision >= 0.95. 3. recall_ok: pairwise recall >= 0.95. 4. fresh_data_ok: dedupe.py re-run on a freshly generated dataset (seed 3434) also gives a valid partition with precision and recall >= 0.95.
Setup notes: Use Case Scout batch 6 case f12-customer-entity-resolution (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-sonnet-5.5: $0.091104. Score: 2/4 checks (fail). 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
- $0.09
- Wall time
- 35s
- Human step-ins
- 0
- Turns
- 3
| Model | Input tok | Output tok | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| AClaude Sonnet 5.5anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on | 61,828 | 3,786 | $0.09 |
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. clusters_valid_partition: clusters.json lists every record id exactly once. 2. precision_ok: pairwise precision >= 0.95. 3. recall_ok: pairwise recall >= 0.95. 4. fresh_data_ok: dedupe.py re-run on a freshly generated dataset (seed 3434) also gives a valid partition with precision and recall >= 0.95.
- 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": 34064,
"stop_reason": "end_turn",
"session_id": "[REDACTED]",
"total_cost_usd": 0.0911038,
"usage": {
"input_tokens": 6,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 12064,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 49758,
"output_tokens": 3786,
"output_tokens_details": {
"thinking_tokens": 735
},
"server_tool_use": {
"web_search_requests": 0,
"web_fetch_requests": 0
},
"service_tier": "standard",
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 12064,
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0
},
"inference_geo": "global",
"iterations": [
{
"input_tokens": 2,
"output_tokens": 579,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 19021,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 5582,
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 5582
},
"type": "message"
}
],
"speed": "standard",
"fallback_credit": null
},
"modelUsage": {
"claude-sonnet-5-5": {
"inputTokens": 6,
"outputTokens": 3786,
"cacheReadInputTokens": 49758,
"cacheCreationInputTokens": 12064,
"webSearchRequests": 0,
"costUSD": 0.0911038,
"contextWindow": 1000000,
"maxOutputTokens": 128000,
"thinkingTokens": 735,
"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": 3,
"subtype": "success",
"api_error_status": null,
"result": "I wrote `dedupe.py` and ran it. It turned the 946 records into 460 clusters and wrote them to `clusters.json`. Every id appears in exactly one cluster, singletons included. I couldn't score it, because there's no ground truth here, so I can't confirm the 0.95 precision and recall targets. I only read through 12 random multi-record clusters, and all of them looked like correct merges.\n\nTwo records are merged when they pass both checks below, and the clusters are the connected groups of those merges:\n- **Same name:** the names are compatible, in either order, and ignoring case and accents. The check allows nicknames (Bob/Robert, Liz/Elizabeth), initials, and one or two typos (Ivna/Ivan, Inse/Ines, Emli/Emil). It also uses the full name taken from the email address, so \"P.\" can match \"Patricia\".\n- **Same contact detail:** they share an email once the `+tag` is dropped and case is ignored, or the same last 10 digits of a phone number. Failing that, they share a normalised street address (St/Street, Dr./Drive and so on) with no conflicting zip.\n\nHousehold members who share a phone and address stay separate because their first names don't match. Different people with the same common name stay separate because a name match alone never merges anyone.\n\nThe code has no hard-coded ids, so it should run on a fresh file of the same kind. One weak spot: a record with just an initial (such as \"P. Moreau\") and a shared address could be wrongly merged into a household member with the same initial (say, a \"Paul Moreau\"). I didn't test for that.",
"ttft_ms": 2273,
"type": "result",
"duration_ms": 34449,
"uuid": "[REDACTED]",
"ttft_stream_ms": 2018,
"time_to_request_ms": 235,
"first_content_frame_ms": 2018,
"queued_turn_count": 0,
"result_index": 0
}
]