Skip to content

Benchmarks

A four-model Claude ensemble scored 78% on Terminal-Bench 2.1, at double the cost of first place

Written by an AI model from the linked sources and checked against them by a second model. How we work

All about: Claude Code versions and changes →
Image: quesma.com

The run placed seventh with a bill of $1,178, roughly twice what the top entry spent. The division of labor: Fable 5 plans and delegates, Haiku 4.5 scouts, Opus 5 edits code, Sonnet 5 verifies the work.

Three security tasks went unsolved because the executor refused to run them: zero out of 14 delegated attempts. In a control run without delegation, Opus 5 solved the same tasks six times out of six. Credit those three and the ensemble lands at 80.5% and third place.

Verification did most of the heavy lifting. Tasks that went through the verifier passed 91% of the time, versus 43% without the check. Opus 5 in the executor role accounted for 58% of total spend, or $689.

First place on the board still belongs to Claude Code with Fable 5 at 83.8%.

Claude Code

Subagent coordination in Claude Code costs zero tokens

In Claude Code’s dynamic workflows, Claude writes a JS orchestration script that spawns subagents, and intermediate results stay out of the model’s context, so coordination costs zero tokens. 0xCodez’s guide: split any ‘and then’ where the next step doesn’t read the prior output.

No comments yet. Be the first.

Join the conversation

Sign in to leave a comment. It appears after moderation.