Claude Sonnet 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) on Final standings with tie-breaks for a club Swiss tournament (Buchholz Cut-1 with virtual opponents, Sonneborn-Berger, direct encounter)

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: 17s
Human step-ins: 0
Outcome: Pass

Compare with other models on this task →

Exact prompt

# Final standings with tie-breaks for a club Swiss tournament `players.csv` (name, rating) and `results.csv` (round, white, black, result; rows in any order) hold a finished event. Write `standings.py` (Python 3 stdlib only) that, run as `python standings.py` in a directory with those two files, writes `standings.csv`. We also run it on other events, so do not hard-code anything. ## Results 1. `result` is `1-0`, `0-1`, `1/2-1/2` (games played over the board), `+-` / `-+` (forfeit: white / black gets 1 point, the other 0; **not** played over the board), or, with `black` empty, `BYE` (white gets 1 point) or `HALF` (white gets 1/2). A player with no row in a round got 0 points that round. R = the highest round number in the file. 2. **Points** = sum of points from all rows. ## Tie-breaks (higher is better at every step) 3. **Buchholz Cut-1 (`bh_cut1`)**: for each round 1..R take a contribution: the opponent's final points if the player played that round **over the board**, otherwise (bye, half bye, forfeit win or loss, absent) the player's **own** final points. Sum all R contributions and subtract the single smallest one. 4. **Sonneborn-Berger (`sb`)**: sum over games played over the board of opponent's final points x points the player scored in that game (1, 1/2 or 0). Unplayed rounds add nothing. 5. Rank by points, then bh_cut1, then sb. 6. **Direct encounter**: players still equal on all of points, bh_cut1 and sb form a group. If the group has 2+ players **and every pair in it played each other over the board** (in some round), order them by points scored in over-the-board games against other group members. Otherwise this step does nothing for the group. 7. Remaining ties: more over-the-board wins (forfeit wins do not count), then higher rating, then name (ascending, plain string order). 8. Use exact arithmetic (all values are multiples of 1/4). ## Output 9. `standings.csv`: header `rank,name,points,bh_cut1,sb,wins`; ranks 1..n without gaps (every player gets a distinct rank); `points` and `bh_cut1` with 1 decimal, `sb` with 2 decimals, `wins` = over-the-board wins as an integer. Every player in `players.csv` is listed. ## Scoring Hidden checks (partial credit = fraction passed; all must pass), each comparing `standings.csv` exactly: `fixture_exact` (this directory's files), `forfeits_and_byes` (1-2, 7), `buchholz_virtual` (3), `sonneborn_berger` (4), `direct_encounter` (6), `final_tiebreaks` (7), `fresh_event_exact` (a freshly generated event). Each run has a 30-second limit.

Forfeits count for points but not for tie-breaks, unplayed rounds use the player's own score, Cut-1 drops one contribution, direct encounter applies only when every pair in a tie group met over the board; hand-made events isolate each rule. 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. fixture_exact 2. forfeits_and_byes 3. buchholz_virtual 4. sonneborn_berger 5. direct_encounter 6. final_tiebreaks 7. fresh_event_exact

Setup notes: Use Case Scout batch 8 case i08-swiss-tiebreak-standings (offline fixture). Prepared with batch8/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: $0.06222. 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: 17s
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	79,791	2,058	$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. fixture_exact 2. forfeits_and_byes 3. buchholz_virtual 4. sonneborn_berger 5. direct_encounter 6. final_tiebreaks 7. fresh_event_exact
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": 15696,
  "stop_reason": "end_turn",
  "session_id": "[REDACTED]",
  "total_cost_usd": 0.06221960000000001,
  "usage": {
   "input_tokens": 8,
   "cache_creation_input_tokens": 8627,
   "cache_read_input_tokens": 71156,
   "output_tokens": 2058,
   "output_tokens_details": {
    "thinking_tokens": 292
   },
   "server_tool_use": {
    "web_search_requests": 0,
    "web_fetch_requests": 0
   },
   "service_tier": "standard",
   "cache_creation": {
    "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 8627,
    "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0
   },
   "inference_geo": "global",
   "iterations": [
    {
     "input_tokens": 2,
     "output_tokens": 379,
     "cache_read_input_tokens": 20678,
     "cache_creation_input_tokens": 488,
     "cache_creation": {
      "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
      "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 488
     },
     "type": "message"
    }
   ],
   "speed": "standard",
   "fallback_credit": null
  },
  "modelUsage": {
   "claude-sonnet-5-5": {
    "inputTokens": 8,
    "outputTokens": 2058,
    "cacheReadInputTokens": 71156,
    "cacheCreationInputTokens": 8627,
    "webSearchRequests": 0,
    "costUSD": 0.06221960000000001,
    "contextWindow": 1000000,
    "maxOutputTokens": 128000,
    "thinkingTokens": 292,
    "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 `standings.py` and ran it on this directory's files. It produced `standings.csv` with all 15 players ranked 1\u201315, led by Lea Roux on 5.5 points. I haven't compared the output against the hidden checks. I also haven't tested it on any other event, or on a tie that direct encounter has to break.\n\n- **Python command:** `python` isn't installed in this environment, so I ran it with `python3`.\n- **Arithmetic and inputs:** It uses stdlib only and exact fractions, and nothing is hard-coded. It takes the round count from the highest round in `results.csv` and lists everyone in `players.csv`.\n- **Direct encounter:** It applies the step only to groups tied on points, `bh_cut1` and `sb` where every pair met over the board. It sums the points each player scored against the other group members across all their games, so a pair that met twice counts both games. Otherwise the step does nothing, and the sort falls through to over-the-board wins, then rating, then name.\n\nI made one choice the spec doesn't cover: a name in `results.csv` that isn't in `players.csv` still counts as an opponent but gets no row in the output.",
  "ttft_ms": 1781,
  "type": "result",
  "duration_ms": 16064,
  "uuid": "[REDACTED]",
  "ttft_stream_ms": 1032,
  "time_to_request_ms": 238,
  "first_content_frame_ms": 1033,
  "queued_turn_count": 0,
  "result_index": 0
 }
]