Skip to content

Claude Opus 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) on Fix a multi-currency brokerage ledger codebase with interacting planted bugs

AClaude Opus 5.5default · thinking on · Claude Code 2.1.299 (headless -p) · cloud · 2026-10-20 · by @bobsiopener

Trust 80%Fully autonomoussuccess · first try
Estimated cost
$0.38
Wall time
1m
Human step-ins
0
Outcome
Pass

Compare with other models on this task →

Rescored on 2026-10-22. Previous score: 39.6 / 100, outcome: partial. See the previous run.

Summary

Exact prompt

# Fix the multi-currency brokerage ledger The working directory contains a small ledger codebase (`solve.py` and the `ledger/` package, about 290 lines) plus sample inputs. Its output does not follow the specification below: **several bugs are planted, and some interact**. Fix the code (you may restructure it freely, Python 3 standard library only) so that `python solve.py input.json answer.json` follows this specification exactly. Hidden checks also run it on freshly generated inputs. ## Inputs `input.json`: `base` (base currency), `as_of` (valuation date), file names for `transactions`, `rates`, `prices`. CSV files may start with a UTF-8 BOM, contain `#` comment lines and blank lines (ignored), padded header names (case-insensitive) and quoted fields with commas. Transaction rows are numbered from 0 = first data row after the header, counting only non-comment, non-blank rows (`line`). - `rates.csv` `date,currency,rate`: units of base per 1 unit of currency. Not every currency has a rate every day. - `prices.csv` `date,symbol,close,currency`. - `transactions.csv` `date,type,account,amount,currency,symbol,qty,memo`. ## Rules 1. All money is exact decimal (no binary floats in calculations). "Round" means to 0.01, **half away from zero for .5 cases (ROUND_HALF_UP)**. 2. FX rate for (currency, date) = the rate with the latest date **on or before** that date (a rate dated exactly that day counts). The base currency's rate is always 1. No such rate means none. 3. Numbers: surrounding spaces and `_` are ignored; `(x)` means -x. A non-number in amount/qty -> reject `bad_number`. Empty amount/qty = 0. Empty currency = base. 4. Validation order per row, first failure wins: unknown type (case-insensitive DEPOSIT, WITHDRAW, TRANSFER, BUY, SELL, DIV, FEE) -> `bad_type`; empty account -> `bad_account`; `bad_number`; amount or qty < 0 -> `negative_value`; no FX rate for the row's currency on its date -> `no_rate`. Then the type-specific checks below. A rejected row changes nothing. Rejects are `{"line", "reason"}` in file order; `applied` counts rows not rejected. 5. Cash is kept per account **per currency** (never converted). 6. DEPOSIT adds cash. WITHDRAW: needs cash in that currency >= amount, else `insufficient_cash`. 7. TRANSFER: memo must be `to:<account>` (prefix case-insensitive, account trimmed, non-empty, different from the source) else `bad_transfer`; needs cash >= amount else `insufficient_cash`; moves the amount **in the same currency** to the destination account (which is created if new). 8. BUY: symbol (upper-cased) non-empty and qty > 0 else `bad_trade`; needs cash >= amount else `insufficient_cash`; pays `amount` (total cost) in the row currency; adds a lot of qty with cost basis = round(amount * rate on the trade date) in base. 9. SELL: symbol/qty as BUY (`bad_trade`); held qty in that account must be >= qty else `insufficient_qty`. Lots are relieved **FIFO** (oldest first). A fully used lot relieves its whole remaining cost; a partly used lot relieves round(lot_cost * take / lot_qty) and keeps the rest (so cost always sums exactly). Proceeds in base = round(amount * rate); realized gain += proceeds - relieved cost. Cash += amount in the row currency. 10. DIV: cash += amount; income += round(amount * rate). FEE: cash -= amount (may go negative); income -= round(amount * rate). 11. Valuation at `as_of`: each holding (qty > 0) uses the last close on or before `as_of` in its quote currency; value_base = round(qty * close * rate(currency, as_of)), or null if no price. Cash in base = sum over currencies of round(balance * rate(currency, as_of)). total_value_base = round(cash in base + sum of holding values). grand_total_base = sum of account totals. ## answer.json `{"accounts": {account: {"cash": {ccy: balance (non-zero only, sorted)}, "holdings": {SYMBOL: {"qty", "cost_base", "value_base"}} (qty > 0 only), "realized_base", "income_base", "total_value_base"}}, "rejects": [...], "applied": n, "grand_total_base"}`. Accounts are every account that ever had cash, lots, gains or income. Money is written as a JSON number with 2 decimals. ## Scoring Hidden checks (partial credit = fraction passed; all must pass): `rejects_and_applied`, `cash_balances`, `holdings_quantities`, `cost_basis`, `realized_gains`, `income`, `valuation` (account totals and grand total) on the given input; `fresh_run_1`, `fresh_run_2` (the whole answer) on fresh inputs. All values exact. 30-second limit per run.

Each bug is plausible code; several masks another (wrong rate date changes the same totals as rounding). Fixing only the obvious ones leaves every money total 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). Rescore note (Oct 22, 2026): Re-scored from the saved work tree (verified file-by-file against the pre-audit SHA-256 manifest after a documented answer-key fault was fixed; measured fields unchanged. Original 6/9 result and scorer log kept beside this file.

Success criteria: 1. rejects_and_applied 2. cash_balances 3. holdings_quantities 4. cost_basis 5. realized_gains 6. income 7. valuation 8. fresh_run_1 9. fresh_run_2

Setup notes: Use Case Scout batch 12 case m01-ledger-debug (offline, synthetic fixture). Prepared with batch12/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 0.20 (8 cores). Claude Code's own reported cost for claude-opus-5.5: $0.376153. Score: 9/9. 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
$0.38
Wall time
1m
Human step-ins
0
Turns
10
Model usage
ModelInput tokOutput tokCost
AClaude Opus 5.5anthropic/claude-opus-5.5effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on267,7726,600$0.38

Reproduce this run

  1. Use the use case prompt on the use case page.
  2. 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.
  3. It counts as a success only if it meets every success criterion: 1. rejects_and_applied 2. cash_balances 3. holdings_quantities 4. cost_basis 5. realized_gains 6. income 7. valuation 8. fresh_run_1 9. fresh_run_2
  4. 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).

Evidence log
[
 {
  "duration_api_ms": 65192,
  "stop_reason": "end_turn",
  "session_id": "[REDACTED]",
  "total_cost_usd": 0.3761534,
  "usage": {
   "input_tokens": 18,
   "cache_creation_input_tokens": 24427,
   "cache_read_input_tokens": 243327,
   "output_tokens": 6600,
   "output_tokens_details": {
    "thinking_tokens": 2955
   },
   "server_tool_use": {
    "web_search_requests": 0,
    "web_fetch_requests": 0
   },
   "service_tier": "standard",
   "cache_creation": {
    "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 24427,
    "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0
   },
   "inference_geo": "global",
   "iterations": [
    {
     "input_tokens": 2,
     "output_tokens": 1039,
     "cache_read_input_tokens": 35474,
     "cache_creation_input_tokens": 1099,
     "cache_creation": {
      "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
      "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 1099
     },
     "type": "message"
    }
   ],
   "speed": "standard",
   "fallback_credit": null
  },
  "modelUsage": {
   "claude-opus-5-5": {
    "inputTokens": 18,
    "outputTokens": 6600,
    "cacheReadInputTokens": 243327,
    "cacheCreationInputTokens": 24427,
    "webSearchRequests": 0,
    "costUSD": 0.3761534,
    "contextWindow": 1000000,
    "maxOutputTokens": 128000,
    "thinkingTokens": 2955,
    "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": 10,
  "subtype": "success",
  "api_error_status": null,
  "result": "I fixed the ledger, and `python solve.py input.json answer.json` now runs cleanly on the given input. I couldn't run the hidden checks, so I checked results by hand instead: some rows from the sample, plus a small made-up input built to hit the tricky cases (BOM, comments, padded headers, a `TO:` memo, `nan`, `(5)`, empty currency, a partial FIFO sale).\n\n**Planted bugs fixed:**\n1. **Rounding** (`ledger/money.py`): it rounded half-to-even; it now rounds half away from zero (`ROUND_HALF_UP`), as rule 1 requires.\n2. **FX lookup** (`ledger/rates.py`): a rate dated exactly on the transaction date was skipped, so the previous day's rate was used. It now counts, as rule 2 says.\n3. **Row numbers** (`ledger/io_csv.py`): the header was counted as row 0, so every reject's `line` was one too high. Data rows now start at 0.\n4. **FIFO** (`ledger/lots.py`): sells used the newest lot first. They now use the oldest first.\n5. **Transfers** (`ledger/ledger.py`): the destination was credited in base currency after conversion. It now gets the same amount in the same currency.\n6. **Phantom accounts**: checking a cash balance created an empty account, so a rejected withdrawal could still make an account appear in the output. Checking no longer creates anything.\n\n**Other hardening:**\n- `nan` and `inf` in amount or qty are now rejected as `bad_number`.\n- Spaces inside parentheses are now accepted, e.g. `( 5 )`.\n- When two rates or two prices share a date, the later row in the file wins.\n- A price with an empty currency is treated as base currency.\n- A holding whose quote currency has no rate on `as_of` now gets a null value instead of crashing.\n- Zero is never written as `-0.0`.\n- Type and base currency are matched case-insensitively.\n\nOn the given input this gives 106 applied rows, 13 rejects and a grand total of 78774.99. I spot-checked the first reject (line 10, an `ira` sell of shares it doesn't hold) and the rounding and FIFO arithmetic on the made-up input; all matched the spec.\n\n**Two judgement calls where the spec is unclear:**\n- A quoted amount like `\"1,000\"` is rejected as `bad_number`, because the spec only says spaces and `_` are ignored.\n- Quantities are written as JSON floats (e.g. `47.0`), since the spec doesn't give a format for them.",
  "ttft_ms": 2073,
  "type": "result",
  "duration_ms": 65896,
  "uuid": "[REDACTED]",
  "ttft_stream_ms": 995,
  "time_to_request_ms": 340,
  "first_content_frame_ms": 995,
  "queued_turn_count": 0,
  "result_index": 0
 }
]

Get new runs and ranking changes weekly