Claude Opus 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 Opus 5.5default · thinking on · Claude Code 2.1.299 (headless -p) · cloud · 2026-10-17 · by @bobsiopener
- Estimated cost
- $0.71
- Wall time
- 3m
- Human step-ins
- 0
- Outcome
- Pass
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-opus-5.5: $0.714061. Score: 4/4 checks. 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
- $0.71
- Wall time
- 3m
- Human step-ins
- 0
- Turns
- 14
| Model | Input tok | Output tok | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| AClaude Opus 5.5anthropic/claude-opus-5.5effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on | 519,252 | 13,993 | $0.71 |
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. 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": 144889,
"stop_reason": "end_turn",
"session_id": "[REDACTED]",
"total_cost_usd": 0.714061,
"usage": {
"input_tokens": 28,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 42339,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 476885,
"output_tokens": 13993,
"output_tokens_details": {
"thinking_tokens": 4565
},
"server_tool_use": {
"web_search_requests": 0,
"web_fetch_requests": 0
},
"service_tier": "standard",
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 42339,
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0
},
"inference_geo": "global",
"iterations": [
{
"input_tokens": 2,
"output_tokens": 1096,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 53126,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 1359,
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 1359
},
"type": "message"
}
],
"speed": "standard",
"fallback_credit": null
},
"modelUsage": {
"claude-opus-5-5": {
"inputTokens": 28,
"outputTokens": 13993,
"cacheReadInputTokens": 476885,
"cacheCreationInputTokens": 42339,
"webSearchRequests": 0,
"costUSD": 0.714061,
"contextWindow": 1000000,
"maxOutputTokens": 128000,
"thinkingTokens": 4565,
"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": 14,
"subtype": "success",
"api_error_status": null,
"result": "I've written `dedupe.py` and run it. It turned the 946 records in `customers.csv` into 435 clusters (143 singletons, 148 pairs, 69 triples, 75 groups of four) and wrote them to `clusters.json`. It uses only the standard library and runs in about 3 seconds. There's no answer key, so I can't give you a precision or recall score; I checked the result by reading through the clusters by hand.\n\n**How records are cleaned up before comparing:**\n- **Names:** lowercased, with accents and punctuation removed (M\u00fcller \u2192 muller).\n- **Email:** lowercased, with any `+tag` dropped.\n- **Phone:** digits only, minus a leading US \"1\".\n- **Street:** suffixes reduced to one form (Street\u2192st, Road\u2192rd, Avenue\u2192ave, \u2026).\n\n**When two records count as the same person:**\n- **Names must fit together.** First and last name may be swapped. Each name may have one typo, or one or two swapped neighbouring letters (Daneil/Dainel). Nicknames come from a built-in table (Bob\u2192Robert, Dick\u2192Richard, Liz\u2192Elizabeth, \u2026), and an initial matches the name or its nickname (\"R.\" matches \"Dick\"). Different first names at the same address, like Hugo and Omar M\u00fcller, never match, which keeps household members apart.\n- **Different emails mean different people.** If both records have an email and they differ after cleanup, they are never merged.\n- **Same email merges** unless both the phone and the address disagree.\n- **Without an email match,** a matching name needs the same phone or the same address, and no conflicting phone or address. Two people who just share a common name at different addresses, like the two Omar Santos, stay separate.\n- **Groups are built strongest match first,** and two groups are only joined if no record in one rules out any record in the other. So an initial like \"J. Smith\" can't link two different household members into one cluster.\n\n**What I checked:**\n- Records sharing a phone number but in different clusters are all genuine households (for example Ines and Margaret Fischer).\n- No cluster contains names that don't fit together.\n- Every record without an email was matched to someone.\n\n**Your call:** two \"Mei Petrov\" records share the email `[REDACTED:email]` but have different phones, streets and cities. I kept them apart as two people who happen to share an email; if they're really one person who moved, the script loses that one pair, which barely affects the score.\n\nThe script reads only the columns, with nothing tied to particular ids. The nickname table covers all the names in this file plus many common English ones, so a new file using unlisted nicknames would lower recall a little.",
"ttft_ms": 2330,
"type": "result",
"duration_ms": 169542,
"uuid": "[REDACTED]",
"ttft_stream_ms": 1830,
"time_to_request_ms": 290,
"first_content_frame_ms": 1830,
"queued_turn_count": 0,
"result_index": 0
}
]