Claude Haiku 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) on Charge families for a children's holiday camp with duplicate bookings, a 14-day refund window, a weekly cap and sibling discounts

AClaude Haiku 5.5default · thinking on · Claude Code 2.1.299 (headless -p) · cloud · 2026-10-22 · by @bobsiopener

Trust 80%Fully autonomoussuccess · first tryCompare

Estimated cost: $0.0053
Wall time: 21s
Human step-ins: 0
Outcome: Pass

Compare with other models on this task →

Exact prompt

# Charge families for a children's holiday camp Inputs: `children.csv` (child_id, family_id), `bookings.csv` (booking_id, child_id, week_start, days), `cancellations.csv` (booking_id, cancelled_on), `prices.json` and `office-note.txt`. Every amount is in pounds. The files and these rules are the record; where the note disagrees with them, the rules win. Rules: - If a child has more than one booking for the same week_start, only the one with the lowest booking number counts (compare the number after BK-, so BK-98 is lower than BK-102); the others are ignored entirely. - A cancelled booking is refunded in full (not charged) if cancelled_on is 14 or more days before week_start; otherwise it is charged as booked. - Charge per booking = number of days x day_price, but never more than week_price. - Within each family and week, every charged booking except the one with the highest charge gets sibling_discount_pct off, rounded half-up to the penny (on a tie, the lowest child_id pays in full). Write `out/camp.json`: `{"counted": [<sorted booking_ids that are charged>], "refunded": [<sorted booking_ids refunded>], "family_due": {"<family_id>": <amount>, ...}, "grand_total": <sum>}` with every family in `children.csv` in `family_due` (0 where nothing is due). ## 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.

Work out what each family owes for two weeks of holiday camp. Some bookings were entered twice and the booking numbers cross from two to three digits, cancellations land exactly on the 14-day refund line, a full week is capped below five day rates, and siblings get a discount except the dearest booking. An office note gives the wrong duplicate and refund rules. 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: duplicates refunds family_due grand_total

Setup notes: Batch 27 case c04-holiday-camp-bookings (offline, synthetic inputs, seed 646410767). 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 0.26 (8 cores). Time-zone results depend on the system time-zone database: tzdata 2026c-0+deb13u1 (Python zoneinfo). Claude Code's own reported cost for claude-haiku-5.5: $0.005296. Score: 4/4. 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: $0.0053
Wall time: 21s
Human step-ins: 0
Turns: 4

Model usage
Model	Input tok	Output tok	Cost
AClaude Haiku 5.5anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on	85,806	4,210	$0.0053

Reproduce this run

Use the use case prompt on the use case page.
Same setup: Claude Haiku 5.5 (anthropic/claude-haiku-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: duplicates refunds family_due grand_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": 20340,
  "stop_reason": "end_turn",
  "session_id": "[REDACTED]",
  "total_cost_usd": 0.00529584,
  "usage": {
   "input_tokens": 8,
   "cache_creation_input_tokens": 12274,
   "cache_read_input_tokens": 73524,
   "output_tokens": 4210,
   "output_tokens_details": {
    "thinking_tokens": 2083
   },
   "server_tool_use": {
    "web_search_requests": 0,
    "web_fetch_requests": 0
   },
   "service_tier": "standard",
   "cache_creation": {
    "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 12274,
    "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0
   },
   "inference_geo": "global",
   "iterations": [
    {
     "input_tokens": 2,
     "output_tokens": 644,
     "cache_read_input_tokens": 21327,
     "cache_creation_input_tokens": 3486,
     "cache_creation": {
      "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
      "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 3486
     },
     "type": "message"
    }
   ],
   "speed": "standard",
   "fallback_credit": null
  },
  "modelUsage": {
   "claude-haiku-5-5": {
    "inputTokens": 8,
    "outputTokens": 4210,
    "cacheReadInputTokens": 73524,
    "cacheCreationInputTokens": 12274,
    "webSearchRequests": 0,
    "costUSD": 0.00529584,
    "contextWindow": 1000000,
    "maxOutputTokens": 128000,
    "thinkingTokens": 2083,
    "canonicalModel": "claude-haiku-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 `out/camp.json`. The grand total is \u00a3750.43, and the script's output matches my hand calculation.\n\n```json\n{\n  \"counted\": [\"BK-72\",\"BK-74\",\"BK-76\",\"BK-80\",\"BK-84\",\"BK-86\",\"BK-88\",\"BK-94\"],\n  \"refunded\": [\"BK-63\",\"BK-82\",\"BK-93\"],\n  \"family_due\": {\"FAM-01\": 134.75, \"FAM-02\": 197.64, \"FAM-03\": 134.75, \"FAM-04\": 62.59, \"FAM-05\": 220.70},\n  \"grand_total\": 750.43\n}\n```\n\nChoices I made:\n\n- **Office note vs. rules:** the note says to keep the newer booking (higher number) and to refund only when cancelled \"more than two weeks\" ahead. The rules say to keep the lowest booking number and to refund at 14 or more days. I followed the rules, as the task instructs. The rules and the note agree on the 14-day cutoff in practice only when a cancellation is not exactly 14 days out, so BK-82 and BK-93 (each exactly 14 days out) are refunded under the rules. Under the note's \"more than two weeks\" they would be charged instead.\n- **Duplicates:** BK-108, BK-120 and BK-139 are dropped as the higher-numbered duplicates. They appear in neither list.\n- **FAM-04 tie:** BK-84 and BK-86 both charge \u00a332.94 for the same week. K224 has the lower child_id, so K224 pays in full and K228 gets 10% off (\u00a329.646, rounded half-up to \u00a329.65).\n- **Capping:** BK-72 (5 days, \u00a3164.70) is capped at the \u00a3134.75 week price.\n\nThe script that wrote the output was a one-off inline Python run, not saved to disk.",
  "ttft_ms": 2353,
  "type": "result",
  "duration_ms": 20733,
  "uuid": "[REDACTED]",
  "ttft_stream_ms": 2153,
  "time_to_request_ms": 250,
  "first_content_frame_ms": 2154,
  "queued_turn_count": 0,
  "result_index": 0
 }
]