- Score · relative 0–100
- 58.6
- Rank
- —
- Status
- Provisional
- Players generated
- 2026-10-09
- Match evidence updated
- 2026-10-24
- Results published
Scores by reasoning setting
Available settings and grouping
Available settings
Checked on 2026-10-09 · Provider documentation
How settings are grouped
- Baseline: Low — tested and included
- Balanced: Medium — tested and included
- Intensive: High — available, not tested in the current results
Scores by game
What this result shows
Strongest included setting: Medium (83.0).
Across included settings, only Tumbleweed has a game score (58.6). Each game counts every generation attempt, a failed one as 0. These are relative scores within each game, not direct comparisons of difficulty.
Match evidence measures these retained programs. It does not establish how a fresh generation will perform. Independent-generation variation is not estimated in this release.
Test protocol and evidence limits
- Model identifier
- stepfun/step-5-preview
- Provider route (catalog)
- openrouter
- Prompt identity / profile
- Not retained in this result set / Not retained in this result set
- Prompt version
- Not retained in this result set
- Generation policy
- Generation-quality admission policy (see methodology)
- Requested output-token limits
- 64000 (5 of 5 indexed attempts)
Generation evidence
- Low: 1 contributing player programs across 1 games
- Medium: 1 contributing player programs across 1 games
Counts describe contributing programs, not independent replications: repairs and resends are not new independent samples. Independent-generation lineage is not retained.
| Game | Reasoning group | Programs | Working-program strength | Raw rating | Combined record (W / D / L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumbleweed | Balanced | 1 working of 1 attempt | 83.0 | 1963.6 | 435 / 2 / 101 |
| Tumbleweed | Baseline | 1 working of 1 attempt | 34.3 | 1217.0 | 33 / 275 / 230 |
Each row covers all the model's programs in one game and setting. Strength and raw rating are attempt-weighted means; under them, each program's score and the lowest and highest rating describe the programs (not a confidence interval). The combined record adds up their matches: evidence volume, not strength.
Failures and budgets
0 model-code generation failures; 0 provider/infrastructure failures excluded from the generation denominator. Runtime player faults are separate: 0 recorded one-sided faults across contributing program rows. A crash or illegal move pinned on one program also counts as that program's loss in its match record; other faults, such as timeouts, are left out of rating evidence.
Repair/resend outcomes and available costs are included. Exact retry ceilings and execution budgets are not retained in this result set; see the methodology for the public policy. Do not infer a measured setting from a current provider catalog.
Player program results
Medium: 100% / 0% / 0% · n 1Low: 100% / 0% / 0% · n 1 No Overall rankMissing IntensiveGeneration cost
$0.19average estimated cost per game and reasoning setting
- Median
- $0.18
- Range
- $0.18–$0.19
- Provider-reported total
- $0.56
- Cost data
- 3 combinations · 3 runs
- Price source
- Provider-reported
- Price list
- boardgame-list-prices-2026-10-09
- Average output
- 62k tokens
- Output range
- 60k–64k tokens
- Runs with output-token data
- 3
How cost is measured
Comparison cost gives equal weight to each model, game, and reasoning-setting combination. Recorded generation attempts include repairs and resends when cost evidence is available; runtime compute and service operation are excluded. Cost and output-token counts use separate telemetry denominators. A list-price estimate is not actual expenditure; mixed evidence is not a uniform standard-price comparison.
Test protocol
- Combines this model's tested reasoning settings
- Player-program generation; retained protocol details are under “Test protocol and evidence limits” above