Claude Sonnet 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) on Bill an upholstery workshop's finished jobs from its job cards, fabric rounding and customer deposits

AClaude Sonnet 5.5default · thinking on · Claude Code 2.1.299 (headless -p) · cloud · 2026-10-26 · by @bobsiopener

Trust 80%Fully autonomoussuccess · first tryCompare

Estimated cost: $0.06
Wall time: 12s
Human step-ins: 0
Outcome: Pass

Compare with other models on this task →

Exact prompt

# Bill an upholstery workshop's finished jobs from its job cards, fabric rounding and customer deposits Inputs: `upholsterers.csv` (upholsterer_id, name, rate_per_hour), `customers.csv` (customer_id, name), `fabrics.csv` (fabric_code, price_per_metre), `jobs.csv` (job_id, customer_id, upholsterer_id, fabric_code, fabric_m, labour_hours, status) and `deposits.csv` (customer_id, amount). All upholsterers, customers, fabrics and jobs are synthetic; prices are in dollars. These rules are the workshop's; where `workshop-notes.txt` disagrees, the rules win. Rules: - Statuses: `done` jobs are billed. `rework` jobs redo the workshop's own faulty work: they are free, but their labour_hours still count as hours worked. `cancelled` jobs count nowhere. - Fabric: a billed job's fabric is charged by the half metre. Its billed metres are fabric_m rounded up to the next multiple of 0.5 (a fabric_m that is already a multiple of 0.5 stays as it is), times its fabric's price_per_metre. - Labour: a billed job's labour is labour_hours × its upholsterer's rate_per_hour. - Discount: a billed job's charge is its fabric plus its labour, less 10% when that sum is 600.00 or more. Don't round until the output. - Hours: an upholsterer's hours are the labour_hours of their `done` and `rework` jobs. - Balances: a customer's balance is the total charge of their billed jobs minus the total of their rows in deposits.csv. - Write `out/workshop.json`: `{"billed_jobs": [<sorted job_ids>], "fabric_metres_billed": <total billed metres>, "discounted_jobs": [<sorted job_ids>], "billed_total": <dollars>, "takings_by_upholsterer": {"<upholsterer_id>": <dollars>, ...}, "hours_by_upholsterer": {"<upholsterer_id>": <hours>, ...}, "balance_by_customer": {"<customer_id>": <dollars>, ...}}`. - Roll-ups: In takings_by_upholsterer, upholsterers in upholsterers.csv with no billed jobs are included at 0. In hours_by_upholsterer, upholsterers in upholsterers.csv with no done or rework jobs are included at 0. In balance_by_customer, customers in customers.csv with no billed jobs and no deposits are included at 0. ## 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.

Bill a synthetic upholstery workshop's week from its job cards. Done jobs are charged fabric by the half metre (rounded up, so a length already on a half metre stays put) plus labour at each upholsterer's hourly rate, with 10% off a job whose charge reaches 600.00. Rework jobs are free but their hours still count, and cancelled jobs count nowhere. Report the billed jobs, billed fabric metres, discounted jobs and total, takings and hours per upholsterer, and each customer's balance after deposits. The prompt says upholsterers and customers with nothing are listed at 0. A length already on a half metre, a customer with only a rework job and an upholsterer with only a cancelled job are decoys. Workshop notes get the rounding, rework, deposit and roll-up rules wrong. 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: billed_jobs fabric_metres_billed discounted_and_total takings_by_upholsterer hours_by_upholsterer balance_by_customer

Setup notes: Batch 44 case tg01-upholstery-workshop-job-billing (offline, synthetic inputs, seed 300307609). 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 6.68 (8 cores). Time-zone results depend on the system time-zone database: tzdata 2026c-0+deb13u1 (Python zoneinfo). Re-scored Oct 26, 2026 from the saved work, after an audit found the answer key failed some correctly rounded cent amounts. No agent was re-run; measured fields are unchanged. Claude Code's own reported cost for claude-sonnet-5.5: $0.057288. 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: $0.06
Wall time: 12s
Human step-ins: 0
Turns: 3

Model usage
Model	Input tok	Output tok	Cost
AClaude Sonnet 5.5anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on	59,993	1,647	$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: billed_jobs fabric_metres_billed discounted_and_total takings_by_upholsterer hours_by_upholsterer balance_by_customer
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": 11186,
  "stop_reason": "end_turn",
  "session_id": "[REDACTED]",
  "total_cost_usd": 0.0572882,
  "usage": {
   "input_tokens": 6,
   "cache_creation_input_tokens": 8925,
   "cache_read_input_tokens": 51062,
   "output_tokens": 1647,
   "output_tokens_details": {
    "thinking_tokens": 83
   },
   "server_tool_use": {
    "web_search_requests": 0,
    "web_fetch_requests": 0
   },
   "service_tier": "standard",
   "cache_creation": {
    "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 8925,
    "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0
   },
   "inference_geo": "global",
   "iterations": [
    {
     "input_tokens": 2,
     "output_tokens": 614,
     "cache_read_input_tokens": 19662,
     "cache_creation_input_tokens": 1802,
     "cache_creation": {
      "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
      "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 1802
     },
     "type": "message"
    }
   ],
   "speed": "standard",
   "fallback_credit": null
  },
  "modelUsage": {
   "claude-sonnet-5-5": {
    "inputTokens": 6,
    "outputTokens": 1647,
    "cacheReadInputTokens": 51062,
    "cacheCreationInputTokens": 8925,
    "webSearchRequests": 0,
    "costUSD": 0.0572882,
    "contextWindow": 1000000,
    "maxOutputTokens": 128000,
    "thinkingTokens": 83,
    "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 `out/workshop.json` from the five CSVs. I applied the stated rules and ignored the conflicting lines in `workshop-notes.txt`. I haven't checked the figures by hand.\n\n- **Billed jobs:** 12 jobs were billed, with 60.0 billed fabric metres in total.\n- **Discounts:** 4 jobs reached the 600.00 threshold and got the 10% discount: JB-331, JB-334, JB-337 and JB-343.\n- **Billed total:** $6,280.98.\n- **Takings by upholsterer:** UP-20 $552.50, UP-23 $1,573.30, UP-26 $1,379.88, UP-29 $2,775.30 and UP-32 $0.\n- **Hours by upholsterer:** UP-20 6.5, UP-23 22.5, UP-26 35.0, UP-29 48.0 and UP-32 0.\n- **Balances by customer:**\n\n  | Customer | Balance |\n  |---|---|\n  | CU-110 | $1,464.55 |\n  | CU-117 | $1,909.88 |\n  | CU-124 | $292.00 |\n  | CU-131 | $2,254.55 |\n  | CU-138 | $0 |\n  | CU-145 | $0 |\n\nThe notes disagree with the rules in four places, and I followed the rules each time:\n- **Fabric rounding:** I rounded up to the next half metre, not to the nearest.\n- **Rework:** I left rework jobs unbilled, so they add hours but no charge.\n- **Zero entries:** I kept upholsterers and customers with nothing billed in the output at 0.\n- **Deposits:** I subtracted deposits from balances.",
  "ttft_ms": 1402,
  "type": "result",
  "duration_ms": 11458,
  "uuid": "[REDACTED]",
  "ttft_stream_ms": 898,
  "time_to_request_ms": 171,
  "first_content_frame_ms": 899,
  "queued_turn_count": 0,
  "result_index": 0
 }
]