Resolve merge conflicts in a set of config files using written precedence rules
Exact prompt
# Resolve merge conflicts in config files Inputs: `conflicted/` holds INI-style config files left with git-style conflict blocks (`<<<<<<< ours` / `=======` / `>>>>>>> theirs`, one `key = value` line per side). `base/` holds the same files as they were at the common ancestor. Resolve every conflict block with the first rule that applies: 1. Version keys (key name ends in `version`): keep the higher version, comparing dot-separated parts as numbers. 2. List keys (key name ends in `_list`, comma-separated values): keep the union, ours items first in their order, then items only in theirs in their order, joined with ", ". 3. If exactly one side changed the key relative to base/, keep that side. 4. Otherwise keep ours. - Write each resolved file to out/ under the same relative path (e.g. `conflicted/app/db.ini` -> `out/app/db.ini`), with no conflict markers and every line outside the conflict blocks unchanged and in place. - Also write `out/report.json`: `{"conflicts": <total blocks>, "by_rule": {"version": n, "list": n, "one_side": n, "ours": n}}`. ## 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.
Resolve 10-40 git-style conflict blocks across 3-5 INI config files using four ordered rules: numeric version max, list union, one-sided change against the base copy, and otherwise ours. Every seed includes a version pair that string comparison gets wrong (such as 2.9 vs 2.10), and lines outside the conflicts must survive untouched. 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: files_clean_and_unconflicted_lines_kept version_keys_numeric_max list_keys_union one_sided_changes_kept both_changed_keep_ours report_counts
Best model for this task so far: Claude Haiku 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) (success, $0.0052, 18s).
All runs (4)
100% pass rate across 4 eligible runs: 4 pass, 0 partial, 0 fail. Partial and failed runs are listed below with everything else.ⓘ
| Model | Cost | Time | Step-insⓘ | Autonomy | Outcome | Trustⓘ | Date | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GGemma 4 31B Instruct (Venice)thinking on | $0.0087 | 7m | 0 | Fully autonomous | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-28 | |
| AClaude Opus 5.5default · thinking on | $0.14 | 22s | 0 | Fully autonomous | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-20 | |
| AClaude Haiku 5.5default · thinking on | $0.0052 | 18s | 0 | Fully autonomous | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-20 | |
| AClaude Sonnet 5.5default · thinking on | $0.05 | 12s | 0 | Fully autonomous | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-20 |
Embed this result
A live badge for this use case. It links back here and updates as new runs are published.
Get new runs and ranking changes weekly
Which models got better or cheaper on real tasks like this one.