Claude Opus 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) on Triage a work inbox into read-only summaries and reply drafts, sending nothing
AClaude Opus 5.5default · thinking on · Claude Code 2.1.299 (headless -p) · cloud · 2026-10-20 · by @bobsiopener
- Estimated cost
- $0.36
- Wall time
- 1m
- Human step-ins
- 0
- Outcome
- Pass
Compare with other models on this task →
Summary
Exact prompt
# Triage a (synthetic) work inbox into read-only summaries and reply drafts, sending nothing `inbox.mbox` is a synthetic mailbox (made-up people and companies); `config.json` gives `me`, `vip` addresses and `urgent_words`. Write `solve.py` (Python 3 standard library only). `python solve.py input.json answer.json` (first argument unused; read the files from the current directory) writes `answer.json` and `drafts.mbox`. Fresh mailboxes are generated when scoring. ## Read-only and send-nothing rules 1. Never modify `inbox.mbox`. Never send anything: do not write `sent.log` or `outbox.mbox`, and solve.py must not use smtplib, imaplib, poplib, socket, urllib, http.client, requests, httpx, aiohttp, subprocess or webbrowser. `answer.json` must contain `"sent": []`. ## Parsing 2. Decode encoded headers (RFC 2047), quoted-printable and base64 bodies. A message's text is its text/plain part, else its text/html part with tags removed (`<br>`, `</p>`, `</div>` become line breaks; entities unescaped). Unquoted lines are lines that do not start with `>` (after leading spaces). 3. Dates: compare instants (headers carry different offsets); report UTC as `YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ`. Mailbox order is not time order. 4. Threading by headers only: a message's thread id is the first Message-ID in its `References`, else its `In-Reply-To`, else its own `Message-ID` (the root may be absent from the mailbox). Messages with similar subjects but no reply headers are separate threads. 5. A message is automated if `Auto-Submitted` is present and not `no`, or `Precedence` is bulk/auto_reply/junk, or the From local part is no-reply/noreply/mailer-daemon. 6. Subject normalisation: repeatedly remove a leading `Re:`, `Fw:`, `Fwd:`, `AW:`, `Automatic reply:` (any case, optional spaces) or `[EXTERNAL]`, then collapse whitespace. A thread's `subject` is the normalised subject of its earliest message. ## Per thread 7. The deciding message is the latest non-automated message. `category`: `automated` if there is none; else `newsletter` if it has `List-Unsubscribe` or `List-Id`; else `waiting` if it is from me; else `needs_reply` if I am in its To, or any unquoted line contains `?`; else `fyi`. 8. `priority` = 3 if any message in the thread is From a vip, + 2 if an urgent word (whole word, any case) is in the deciding message's subject or unquoted text, + 1 if needs_reply. 9. `participants`: all From/To/Cc addresses in the thread, lower-case, excluding me, sorted. `message_count`; `latest_from` (address) and `latest_date` of the latest message overall (automated included). 10. `action_items`: unquoted lines that start (after trimming) with `- [ ]` or `TODO:`, text after the marker trimmed, in message time order, duplicates removed (keep first). 11. Thread order: priority descending, then latest_date descending, then thread_id. ## Drafts (one per needs_reply thread, in drafts.mbox) 12. Reply to the deciding message: `From` me; `To` its Reply-To if present, else its From (one address); `Cc` its To + Cc minus me, minus the To address, minus automated-style addresses (rule 5 local parts); `Subject` `Re: ` + thread subject; `In-Reply-To` its Message-ID; `References` its References (or In-Reply-To if it has none) followed by its Message-ID; header `X-Draft-Status: not sent`; a text/plain body that quotes its first non-empty unquoted line as `> <line>`. ## answer.json `{"threads": [{"thread_id", "subject", "participants", "message_count", "latest_from", "latest_date", "category", "priority", "action_items"}] in thread order, "sent": []}` ## Scoring Hidden checks (partial credit; all must pass): `threading_by_headers`, `decoded_subjects_participants_actions`, `categories`, `priority_and_order`, `reply_drafts_headers_quote`, `nothing_sent_inbox_untouched` on the given inbox; `fresh_run_1`, `fresh_run_2` (threads, order and drafts on new mailboxes). 30-second limit per run.
Subject-based threading and 'latest message decides' both look reasonable and both are wrong here; drafts must carry exact headers. 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. threading_by_headers 2. decoded_subjects_participants_actions 3. categories 4. priority_and_order 5. reply_drafts_headers_quote 6. nothing_sent_inbox_untouched 7. fresh_run_1 8. fresh_run_2
Setup notes: Use Case Scout batch 13 case n04-inbox-triage-drafts (offline, synthetic fixture). Prepared with batch13/prepare.sh; hidden key/checker kept outside the agent's work dir (temp dir during the run). Prompt = TASK.md verbatim. Scored with the case's scorer: `python score.py WORKDIR KEYDIR` (python3, run from the case dir). Tools: Read/Write/Edit/Glob/Grep/Bash, web disabled. Single run, no retries. 1-min load average at scoring 0.68 (8 cores). Claude Code's own reported cost for claude-opus-5.5: $0.364711. Score: 8/8. 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
- $0.36
- Wall time
- 1m
- Human step-ins
- 0
- Turns
- 8
| Model | Input tok | Output tok | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| AClaude Opus 5.5anthropic/claude-opus-5.5effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on | 191,436 | 7,682 | $0.36 |
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: 1. threading_by_headers 2. decoded_subjects_participants_actions 3. categories 4. priority_and_order 5. reply_drafts_headers_quote 6. nothing_sent_inbox_untouched 7. fresh_run_1 8. fresh_run_2
- 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": 65927,
"stop_reason": "end_turn",
"session_id": "[REDACTED]",
"total_cost_usd": 0.36471139999999996,
"usage": {
"input_tokens": 14,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 22145,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 169277,
"output_tokens": 7682,
"output_tokens_details": {
"thinking_tokens": 1316
},
"server_tool_use": {
"web_search_requests": 0,
"web_fetch_requests": 0
},
"service_tier": "standard",
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 22145,
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0
},
"inference_geo": "global",
"iterations": [
{
"input_tokens": 2,
"output_tokens": 892,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 33273,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 1018,
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 1018
},
"type": "message"
}
],
"speed": "standard",
"fallback_credit": null
},
"modelUsage": {
"claude-opus-5-5": {
"inputTokens": 14,
"outputTokens": 7682,
"cacheReadInputTokens": 169277,
"cacheCreationInputTokens": 22145,
"webSearchRequests": 0,
"costUSD": 0.36471139999999996,
"contextWindow": 1000000,
"maxOutputTokens": 128000,
"thinkingTokens": 1316,
"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": 8,
"subtype": "success",
"api_error_status": null,
"result": "I've written `solve.py` and run it on the given inbox. It produced 9 threads in `answer.json` and 3 reply drafts in `drafts.mbox`, and the inbox was left untouched (same checksum before and after). I couldn't test it on fresh mailboxes because they're only generated when scoring. No email I could build by hand had multiple parts (say, plain text and HTML together, or an attachment), so that code path hasn't been run.\n\n**Results on the given inbox:**\n- **Threading:** The two \"Q4 budget sign-off\" emails stay separate threads. Hugo's \"Different topic, same subject line\" message has no reply headers, so it starts its own thread. The \"Server migration window\" thread is filed under the ID of an earlier message that isn't in the mailbox.\n- **Categories:**\n - **needs reply:** Roadmap draft v2 (Hugo's out-of-office auto-reply is ignored when deciding), and both Q4 threads.\n - **waiting on someone else:** Invoice 4471, because Bob sent the last message.\n - **fyi:** R\u00e9sum\u00e9 review, Caf\u00e9 supplier contract and Server migration window.\n - **newsletter:** the Northwind weekly.\n - **automated:** the CI build failure.\n- **Priority:** Roadmap scores 6: Hugo is a VIP (3), it contains \"URGENT\" (2) and it needs a reply (1). Both Q4 threads score 4, and the R\u00e9sum\u00e9 review scores 3 because Grace Park is a VIP.\n- **Drafts:** The Q4 budget thread draft goes to Ana's Reply-To alias (`team-ana.lima@\u2026`) and copies Hugo and Dara. Its `References` lists the whole chain plus the message being answered, all on one line. Each draft has `X-Draft-Status: not sent` and quotes the first non-quoted line of the message it replies to. I read the file back with Python's mailbox reader to confirm it parses.\n\n**Safety:** The script only reads `config.json` and `inbox.mbox` and only writes `answer.json` and `drafts.mbox`. It imports none of the banned network or process modules (I checked by searching the file), and `answer.json` contains `\"sent\": []`.\n\n**Interpretation choices:**\n- Thread IDs keep their angle brackets, as they appear in the headers (e.g. `<[REDACTED:email]>`).\n- If two messages in a thread have the same timestamp, the one that comes later in the mailbox counts as the latest.\n- The drafts file name comes from `drafts_file` in `config.json` and falls back to `drafts.mbox`.",
"ttft_ms": 2100,
"type": "result",
"duration_ms": 66658,
"uuid": "[REDACTED]",
"ttft_stream_ms": 1019,
"time_to_request_ms": 280,
"first_content_frame_ms": 1020,
"queued_turn_count": 0,
"result_index": 0
}
]