Anthropic / MODEL EVIDENCE

Claude Opus 5.5 (Terminus 2)

1 benchmarks · 1 observations · 1 sources

Scores at a glance

1 benchmarks · large dot: Claude Opus 5.5 (Terminus 2); small dots: closest models where reported

Closest models by score

Similar positions on shared benchmark leaderboards. Smaller gaps are closer.

How similarity is measured

Mean absolute gap in percentile positions on shared benchmark settings; lower is closer. At least 60% overlap is required, with a minimum of three when available. Independent evaluations are used when there are at least three; otherwise published report comparisons are used. Repeated model observations within one setting are averaged before ranking. Writing-style traits and composite indices are excluded. This describes similarity, not an overall quality ranking.

POST-TRAINING / SOURCE DISCLOSURE

What the Claude Opus 5.5 report says

Anthropic describes fine-tuning after pretraining to align the assistant with Claude’s constitution. The system card also documents human preference selection, safety evaluation and adversarial testing.

  • Post-training and fine-tuning guided by Claude’s constitution
  • Human preference and safety-evaluation data

The system card does not disclose a production PPO, DPO or GRPO recipe. Constitutional AI is a related method note; its particular SL-CAI/RL-CAI implementation is not asserted for this release.

  1. Claude Opus 5.5 System Card ↗

    Anthropic · 2026

Sources

Every plotted observation links to its evaluation. Reported configurations, benchmark versions and task subsets can differ; similarity describes shared scores, not training lift.

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.1 — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Vals AI · 2026

Names used in source tables

Claude Opus 5.5 (Terminus 2)