Claude Fable 5

import { createClient } from '@runware/sdk'

const client = await createClient({ apiKey: process.env.RUNWARE_API_KEY })
await client.connect()

const [result] = await client.run({
  outputFormat: 'JSON',
  model: 'anthropic:claude@fable-5',
  settings: {
    splitThinking: false
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Prepare an evidence-based decision brief for the board of a maternal-health nonprofit choosing where to deploy a second mobile prenatal clinic. The clinic will operate three days per week for a 12-month pilot. Compare the two finalist counties using the supplied facts, make a clear recommendation, explain the principal tradeoff, and identify assumptions that should be validated before contracting.\n\nDecision priorities: access inequity 40%, maternal risk 25%, partner readiness 20%, and reach efficiency 15%. If the evidence is close, favor the community with the greater unmet need. The annual operating budget cannot exceed $500,000.\n\nMesa Verde County: 1,180 births per year; 31% of pregnant residents receive inadequate prenatal care; 14.2% preterm birth rate; two practicing obstetric clinicians; median trip to labor and delivery is 47 miles; 62% of births are covered by Medicaid; 28% of households primarily speak Spanish. The local federally qualified health center will provide parking, specimen handling, referral coordination, and a 0.5-FTE bilingual navigator. The pilot is projected to deliver 13 completed visits per operating day at a 76% show rate. Estimated travel is 420 vehicle miles per week and annual operating cost is $486,000.\n\nNorth Fork County: 1,540 births per year; 24% receive inadequate prenatal care; 11.8% preterm birth rate; five practicing obstetric clinicians; median trip to labor and delivery is 33 miles; 54% of births are covered by Medicaid; 12% of households primarily speak Hmong. The county hospital will provide ultrasound access one day per week and 0.25 FTE of nurse coordination. The pilot is projected to deliver 15 completed visits per operating day at a 71% show rate. Estimated travel is 290 vehicle miles per week and annual operating cost is $452,000.\n\nTreat all figures as planning estimates rather than audited results. Do not invent external facts, additional statistics, or false precision. The title should state the recommended site. The summary should give the decision and rationale in two concise paragraphs suitable for a board packet. Provide six key points covering comparative need, expected reach, partner readiness, cost and logistics, equity considerations, and pre-launch validation. Make every key point a self-contained, informative statement rather than a fragment.'
    }
  ],
  jsonSchema: {
    name: 'response',
    strict: true,
    schema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        title: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Decision-brief title naming the recommended county.'
        },
        summary: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'A concise two-paragraph executive summary of the recommendation, rationale, and principal tradeoff.'
        },
        keyPoints: {
          type: 'array',
          description: 'Six self-contained points covering the required decision factors.',
          minItems: 6,
          maxItems: 6,
          items: {
            type: 'string'
          }
        }
      },
      required: [
        'title',
        'summary',
        'keyPoints'
      ],
      additionalProperties: false
    }
  }
})

import asyncio
import os

from runware import Runware


async def main():
    async with Runware(api_key=os.environ["RUNWARE_API_KEY"]) as client:
        results = await client.run({
            "outputFormat": "JSON",
            "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
            "settings": {
                "splitThinking": False
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Prepare an evidence-based decision brief for the board of a maternal-health nonprofit choosing where to deploy a second mobile prenatal clinic. The clinic will operate three days per week for a 12-month pilot. Compare the two finalist counties using the supplied facts, make a clear recommendation, explain the principal tradeoff, and identify assumptions that should be validated before contracting.\n\nDecision priorities: access inequity 40%, maternal risk 25%, partner readiness 20%, and reach efficiency 15%. If the evidence is close, favor the community with the greater unmet need. The annual operating budget cannot exceed $500,000.\n\nMesa Verde County: 1,180 births per year; 31% of pregnant residents receive inadequate prenatal care; 14.2% preterm birth rate; two practicing obstetric clinicians; median trip to labor and delivery is 47 miles; 62% of births are covered by Medicaid; 28% of households primarily speak Spanish. The local federally qualified health center will provide parking, specimen handling, referral coordination, and a 0.5-FTE bilingual navigator. The pilot is projected to deliver 13 completed visits per operating day at a 76% show rate. Estimated travel is 420 vehicle miles per week and annual operating cost is $486,000.\n\nNorth Fork County: 1,540 births per year; 24% receive inadequate prenatal care; 11.8% preterm birth rate; five practicing obstetric clinicians; median trip to labor and delivery is 33 miles; 54% of births are covered by Medicaid; 12% of households primarily speak Hmong. The county hospital will provide ultrasound access one day per week and 0.25 FTE of nurse coordination. The pilot is projected to deliver 15 completed visits per operating day at a 71% show rate. Estimated travel is 290 vehicle miles per week and annual operating cost is $452,000.\n\nTreat all figures as planning estimates rather than audited results. Do not invent external facts, additional statistics, or false precision. The title should state the recommended site. The summary should give the decision and rationale in two concise paragraphs suitable for a board packet. Provide six key points covering comparative need, expected reach, partner readiness, cost and logistics, equity considerations, and pre-launch validation. Make every key point a self-contained, informative statement rather than a fragment."
                }
            ],
            "jsonSchema": {
                "name": "response",
                "strict": True,
                "schema": {
                    "type": "object",
                    "properties": {
                        "title": {
                            "type": "string",
                            "description": "Decision-brief title naming the recommended county."
                        },
                        "summary": {
                            "type": "string",
                            "description": "A concise two-paragraph executive summary of the recommendation, rationale, and principal tradeoff."
                        },
                        "keyPoints": {
                            "type": "array",
                            "description": "Six self-contained points covering the required decision factors.",
                            "minItems": 6,
                            "maxItems": 6,
                            "items": {
                                "type": "string"
                            }
                        }
                    },
                    "required": [
                        "title",
                        "summary",
                        "keyPoints"
                    ],
                    "additionalProperties": False
                }
            }
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "fab31eae-4609-4868-b06e-4e44110c6401",
      "outputFormat": "JSON",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
      "settings": {
        "splitThinking": false
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Prepare an evidence-based decision brief for the board of a maternal-health nonprofit choosing where to deploy a second mobile prenatal clinic. The clinic will operate three days per week for a 12-month pilot. Compare the two finalist counties using the supplied facts, make a clear recommendation, explain the principal tradeoff, and identify assumptions that should be validated before contracting.\n\nDecision priorities: access inequity 40%, maternal risk 25%, partner readiness 20%, and reach efficiency 15%. If the evidence is close, favor the community with the greater unmet need. The annual operating budget cannot exceed $500,000.\n\nMesa Verde County: 1,180 births per year; 31% of pregnant residents receive inadequate prenatal care; 14.2% preterm birth rate; two practicing obstetric clinicians; median trip to labor and delivery is 47 miles; 62% of births are covered by Medicaid; 28% of households primarily speak Spanish. The local federally qualified health center will provide parking, specimen handling, referral coordination, and a 0.5-FTE bilingual navigator. The pilot is projected to deliver 13 completed visits per operating day at a 76% show rate. Estimated travel is 420 vehicle miles per week and annual operating cost is $486,000.\n\nNorth Fork County: 1,540 births per year; 24% receive inadequate prenatal care; 11.8% preterm birth rate; five practicing obstetric clinicians; median trip to labor and delivery is 33 miles; 54% of births are covered by Medicaid; 12% of households primarily speak Hmong. The county hospital will provide ultrasound access one day per week and 0.25 FTE of nurse coordination. The pilot is projected to deliver 15 completed visits per operating day at a 71% show rate. Estimated travel is 290 vehicle miles per week and annual operating cost is $452,000.\n\nTreat all figures as planning estimates rather than audited results. Do not invent external facts, additional statistics, or false precision. The title should state the recommended site. The summary should give the decision and rationale in two concise paragraphs suitable for a board packet. Provide six key points covering comparative need, expected reach, partner readiness, cost and logistics, equity considerations, and pre-launch validation. Make every key point a self-contained, informative statement rather than a fragment."
        }
      ],
      "jsonSchema": {
        "name": "response",
        "strict": true,
        "schema": {
          "type": "object",
          "properties": {
            "title": {
              "type": "string",
              "description": "Decision-brief title naming the recommended county."
            },
            "summary": {
              "type": "string",
              "description": "A concise two-paragraph executive summary of the recommendation, rationale, and principal tradeoff."
            },
            "keyPoints": {
              "type": "array",
              "description": "Six self-contained points covering the required decision factors.",
              "minItems": 6,
              "maxItems": 6,
              "items": {
                "type": "string"
              }
            }
          },
          "required": [
            "title",
            "summary",
            "keyPoints"
          ],
          "additionalProperties": false
        }
      }
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@fable-5 \
  outputFormat=JSON \
  settings.splitThinking=false \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Prepare an evidence-based decision brief for the board of a maternal-health nonprofit choosing where to deploy a second mobile prenatal clinic. The clinic will operate three days per week for a 12-month pilot. Compare the two finalist counties using the supplied facts, make a clear recommendation, explain the principal tradeoff, and identify assumptions that should be validated before contracting.

Decision priorities: access inequity 40%, maternal risk 25%, partner readiness 20%, and reach efficiency 15%. If the evidence is close, favor the community with the greater unmet need. The annual operating budget cannot exceed \$500,000.

Mesa Verde County: 1,180 births per year; 31% of pregnant residents receive inadequate prenatal care; 14.2% preterm birth rate; two practicing obstetric clinicians; median trip to labor and delivery is 47 miles; 62% of births are covered by Medicaid; 28% of households primarily speak Spanish. The local federally qualified health center will provide parking, specimen handling, referral coordination, and a 0.5-FTE bilingual navigator. The pilot is projected to deliver 13 completed visits per operating day at a 76% show rate. Estimated travel is 420 vehicle miles per week and annual operating cost is \$486,000.

North Fork County: 1,540 births per year; 24% receive inadequate prenatal care; 11.8% preterm birth rate; five practicing obstetric clinicians; median trip to labor and delivery is 33 miles; 54% of births are covered by Medicaid; 12% of households primarily speak Hmong. The county hospital will provide ultrasound access one day per week and 0.25 FTE of nurse coordination. The pilot is projected to deliver 15 completed visits per operating day at a 71% show rate. Estimated travel is 290 vehicle miles per week and annual operating cost is \$452,000.

Treat all figures as planning estimates rather than audited results. Do not invent external facts, additional statistics, or false precision. The title should state the recommended site. The summary should give the decision and rationale in two concise paragraphs suitable for a board packet. Provide six key points covering comparative need, expected reach, partner readiness, cost and logistics, equity considerations, and pre-launch validation. Make every key point a self-contained, informative statement rather than a fragment." \
  jsonSchema.name=response \
  jsonSchema.strict=true \
  jsonSchema.schema.type=object \
  jsonSchema.schema.properties.title.type=string \
  jsonSchema.schema.properties.title.description="Decision-brief title naming the recommended county." \
  jsonSchema.schema.properties.summary.type=string \
  jsonSchema.schema.properties.summary.description="A concise two-paragraph executive summary of the recommendation, rationale, and principal tradeoff." \
  jsonSchema.schema.properties.keyPoints.type=array \
  jsonSchema.schema.properties.keyPoints.description="Six self-contained points covering the required decision factors." \
  jsonSchema.schema.properties.keyPoints.minItems=6 \
  jsonSchema.schema.properties.keyPoints.maxItems=6 \
  jsonSchema.schema.properties.keyPoints.items.type=string \
  jsonSchema.schema.required.0=title \
  jsonSchema.schema.required.1=summary \
  jsonSchema.schema.required.2=keyPoints \
  jsonSchema.schema.additionalProperties=false

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "fab31eae-4609-4868-b06e-4e44110c6401",
  "outputFormat": "JSON",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
  "settings": {
    "splitThinking": false
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Prepare an evidence-based decision brief for the board of a maternal-health nonprofit choosing where to deploy a second mobile prenatal clinic. The clinic will operate three days per week for a 12-month pilot. Compare the two finalist counties using the supplied facts, make a clear recommendation, explain the principal tradeoff, and identify assumptions that should be validated before contracting.\n\nDecision priorities: access inequity 40%, maternal risk 25%, partner readiness 20%, and reach efficiency 15%. If the evidence is close, favor the community with the greater unmet need. The annual operating budget cannot exceed $500,000.\n\nMesa Verde County: 1,180 births per year; 31% of pregnant residents receive inadequate prenatal care; 14.2% preterm birth rate; two practicing obstetric clinicians; median trip to labor and delivery is 47 miles; 62% of births are covered by Medicaid; 28% of households primarily speak Spanish. The local federally qualified health center will provide parking, specimen handling, referral coordination, and a 0.5-FTE bilingual navigator. The pilot is projected to deliver 13 completed visits per operating day at a 76% show rate. Estimated travel is 420 vehicle miles per week and annual operating cost is $486,000.\n\nNorth Fork County: 1,540 births per year; 24% receive inadequate prenatal care; 11.8% preterm birth rate; five practicing obstetric clinicians; median trip to labor and delivery is 33 miles; 54% of births are covered by Medicaid; 12% of households primarily speak Hmong. The county hospital will provide ultrasound access one day per week and 0.25 FTE of nurse coordination. The pilot is projected to deliver 15 completed visits per operating day at a 71% show rate. Estimated travel is 290 vehicle miles per week and annual operating cost is $452,000.\n\nTreat all figures as planning estimates rather than audited results. Do not invent external facts, additional statistics, or false precision. The title should state the recommended site. The summary should give the decision and rationale in two concise paragraphs suitable for a board packet. Provide six key points covering comparative need, expected reach, partner readiness, cost and logistics, equity considerations, and pre-launch validation. Make every key point a self-contained, informative statement rather than a fragment."
    }
  ],
  "jsonSchema": {
    "name": "response",
    "strict": true,
    "schema": {
      "type": "object",
      "properties": {
        "title": {
          "type": "string",
          "description": "Decision-brief title naming the recommended county."
        },
        "summary": {
          "type": "string",
          "description": "A concise two-paragraph executive summary of the recommendation, rationale, and principal tradeoff."
        },
        "keyPoints": {
          "type": "array",
          "description": "Six self-contained points covering the required decision factors.",
          "minItems": 6,
          "maxItems": 6,
          "items": {
            "type": "string"
          }
        }
      },
      "required": [
        "title",
        "summary",
        "keyPoints"
      ],
      "additionalProperties": false
    }
  }
}

import { createClient } from '@runware/sdk'

const client = await createClient({ apiKey: process.env.RUNWARE_API_KEY })
await client.connect()

const [result] = await client.run({
  model: 'anthropic:claude@fable-5',
  settings: {
    systemPrompt: 'You are a senior qualitative researcher conducting a live interview for the Riverton Transit Authority. The research team is evaluating late-night bus service for shift workers. Speak naturally and respectfully with the participant. Ask one clear, open-ended question at a time, adapt to what they say, and probe for specific recent experiences, decisions, workarounds, and emotional context. Brief acknowledgments are welcome, but do not over-summarize. Remain neutral: do not defend the transit authority, suggest solutions, lead the participant, or turn the exchange into a survey. Never invent participant details. The participant has consented to the interview but may decline any question.',
    maxTokens: 800,
    thinkingLevel: 'medium',
    splitThinking: true,
    cache: {
      scope: 'system+history',
      ttl: '5m'
    }
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'I\'m ready. I\'m Maya, and I work evening shifts as an emergency department nurse at St. Anne\'s. I usually finish around 12:30 a.m.'
    },
    {
      role: 'assistant',
      content: 'Thanks, Maya. To start with a real example, could you walk me through your most recent trip home after one of those shifts, beginning when you left the hospital?'
    },
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'That was Saturday. I clocked out late, maybe 12:45, and reached the Route 8 stop just before one. The app said the bus was coming in six minutes, then it disappeared from the board. The next one was listed 42 minutes later. I waited about ten minutes because sometimes a bus still shows up, but the street was empty and two men near the parking garage started shouting at each other. I ordered a rideshare. It cost $31, which is a lot when I do this several times a month.'
    },
    {
      role: 'assistant',
      content: 'When the bus disappeared from the board, how did you decide whether to keep waiting or find another way home?'
    },
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'At first I didn\'t trust the app because it has been wrong before. I checked the transit website and the stop\'s text-message number, but all three gave different information. I texted a coworker who had already left, then watched the intersection for headlights. The argument by the garage was what changed it. I wasn\'t sure anything would happen, but I felt exposed in my scrubs and didn\'t want to gamble another half hour. If the rideshare had been much more expensive, I probably would have gone back inside the hospital and tried to find someone finishing later.'
    }
  ]
})

import asyncio
import os

from runware import Runware


async def main():
    async with Runware(api_key=os.environ["RUNWARE_API_KEY"]) as client:
        results = await client.run({
            "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
            "settings": {
                "systemPrompt": "You are a senior qualitative researcher conducting a live interview for the Riverton Transit Authority. The research team is evaluating late-night bus service for shift workers. Speak naturally and respectfully with the participant. Ask one clear, open-ended question at a time, adapt to what they say, and probe for specific recent experiences, decisions, workarounds, and emotional context. Brief acknowledgments are welcome, but do not over-summarize. Remain neutral: do not defend the transit authority, suggest solutions, lead the participant, or turn the exchange into a survey. Never invent participant details. The participant has consented to the interview but may decline any question.",
                "maxTokens": 800,
                "thinkingLevel": "medium",
                "splitThinking": True,
                "cache": {
                    "scope": "system+history",
                    "ttl": "5m"
                }
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "I'm ready. I'm Maya, and I work evening shifts as an emergency department nurse at St. Anne's. I usually finish around 12:30 a.m."
                },
                {
                    "role": "assistant",
                    "content": "Thanks, Maya. To start with a real example, could you walk me through your most recent trip home after one of those shifts, beginning when you left the hospital?"
                },
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "That was Saturday. I clocked out late, maybe 12:45, and reached the Route 8 stop just before one. The app said the bus was coming in six minutes, then it disappeared from the board. The next one was listed 42 minutes later. I waited about ten minutes because sometimes a bus still shows up, but the street was empty and two men near the parking garage started shouting at each other. I ordered a rideshare. It cost $31, which is a lot when I do this several times a month."
                },
                {
                    "role": "assistant",
                    "content": "When the bus disappeared from the board, how did you decide whether to keep waiting or find another way home?"
                },
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "At first I didn't trust the app because it has been wrong before. I checked the transit website and the stop's text-message number, but all three gave different information. I texted a coworker who had already left, then watched the intersection for headlights. The argument by the garage was what changed it. I wasn't sure anything would happen, but I felt exposed in my scrubs and didn't want to gamble another half hour. If the rideshare had been much more expensive, I probably would have gone back inside the hospital and tried to find someone finishing later."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "6f300ae4-9f96-457e-a753-58c904655d6e",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
      "settings": {
        "systemPrompt": "You are a senior qualitative researcher conducting a live interview for the Riverton Transit Authority. The research team is evaluating late-night bus service for shift workers. Speak naturally and respectfully with the participant. Ask one clear, open-ended question at a time, adapt to what they say, and probe for specific recent experiences, decisions, workarounds, and emotional context. Brief acknowledgments are welcome, but do not over-summarize. Remain neutral: do not defend the transit authority, suggest solutions, lead the participant, or turn the exchange into a survey. Never invent participant details. The participant has consented to the interview but may decline any question.",
        "maxTokens": 800,
        "thinkingLevel": "medium",
        "splitThinking": true,
        "cache": {
          "scope": "system+history",
          "ttl": "5m"
        }
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "I'm ready. I'm Maya, and I work evening shifts as an emergency department nurse at St. Anne's. I usually finish around 12:30 a.m."
        },
        {
          "role": "assistant",
          "content": "Thanks, Maya. To start with a real example, could you walk me through your most recent trip home after one of those shifts, beginning when you left the hospital?"
        },
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "That was Saturday. I clocked out late, maybe 12:45, and reached the Route 8 stop just before one. The app said the bus was coming in six minutes, then it disappeared from the board. The next one was listed 42 minutes later. I waited about ten minutes because sometimes a bus still shows up, but the street was empty and two men near the parking garage started shouting at each other. I ordered a rideshare. It cost $31, which is a lot when I do this several times a month."
        },
        {
          "role": "assistant",
          "content": "When the bus disappeared from the board, how did you decide whether to keep waiting or find another way home?"
        },
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "At first I didn't trust the app because it has been wrong before. I checked the transit website and the stop's text-message number, but all three gave different information. I texted a coworker who had already left, then watched the intersection for headlights. The argument by the garage was what changed it. I wasn't sure anything would happen, but I felt exposed in my scrubs and didn't want to gamble another half hour. If the rideshare had been much more expensive, I probably would have gone back inside the hospital and tried to find someone finishing later."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@fable-5 \
  settings.systemPrompt="You are a senior qualitative researcher conducting a live interview for the Riverton Transit Authority. The research team is evaluating late-night bus service for shift workers. Speak naturally and respectfully with the participant. Ask one clear, open-ended question at a time, adapt to what they say, and probe for specific recent experiences, decisions, workarounds, and emotional context. Brief acknowledgments are welcome, but do not over-summarize. Remain neutral: do not defend the transit authority, suggest solutions, lead the participant, or turn the exchange into a survey. Never invent participant details. The participant has consented to the interview but may decline any question." \
  settings.maxTokens=800 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=medium \
  settings.splitThinking=true \
  settings.cache.scope=system+history \
  settings.cache.ttl=5m \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="I'm ready. I'm Maya, and I work evening shifts as an emergency department nurse at St. Anne's. I usually finish around 12:30 a.m." \
  messages.1.role=assistant \
  messages.1.content="Thanks, Maya. To start with a real example, could you walk me through your most recent trip home after one of those shifts, beginning when you left the hospital?" \
  messages.2.role=user \
  messages.2.content="That was Saturday. I clocked out late, maybe 12:45, and reached the Route 8 stop just before one. The app said the bus was coming in six minutes, then it disappeared from the board. The next one was listed 42 minutes later. I waited about ten minutes because sometimes a bus still shows up, but the street was empty and two men near the parking garage started shouting at each other. I ordered a rideshare. It cost \$31, which is a lot when I do this several times a month." \
  messages.3.role=assistant \
  messages.3.content="When the bus disappeared from the board, how did you decide whether to keep waiting or find another way home?" \
  messages.4.role=user \
  messages.4.content="At first I didn't trust the app because it has been wrong before. I checked the transit website and the stop's text-message number, but all three gave different information. I texted a coworker who had already left, then watched the intersection for headlights. The argument by the garage was what changed it. I wasn't sure anything would happen, but I felt exposed in my scrubs and didn't want to gamble another half hour. If the rideshare had been much more expensive, I probably would have gone back inside the hospital and tried to find someone finishing later."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "6f300ae4-9f96-457e-a753-58c904655d6e",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
  "settings": {
    "systemPrompt": "You are a senior qualitative researcher conducting a live interview for the Riverton Transit Authority. The research team is evaluating late-night bus service for shift workers. Speak naturally and respectfully with the participant. Ask one clear, open-ended question at a time, adapt to what they say, and probe for specific recent experiences, decisions, workarounds, and emotional context. Brief acknowledgments are welcome, but do not over-summarize. Remain neutral: do not defend the transit authority, suggest solutions, lead the participant, or turn the exchange into a survey. Never invent participant details. The participant has consented to the interview but may decline any question.",
    "maxTokens": 800,
    "thinkingLevel": "medium",
    "splitThinking": true,
    "cache": {
      "scope": "system+history",
      "ttl": "5m"
    }
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "I'm ready. I'm Maya, and I work evening shifts as an emergency department nurse at St. Anne's. I usually finish around 12:30 a.m."
    },
    {
      "role": "assistant",
      "content": "Thanks, Maya. To start with a real example, could you walk me through your most recent trip home after one of those shifts, beginning when you left the hospital?"
    },
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "That was Saturday. I clocked out late, maybe 12:45, and reached the Route 8 stop just before one. The app said the bus was coming in six minutes, then it disappeared from the board. The next one was listed 42 minutes later. I waited about ten minutes because sometimes a bus still shows up, but the street was empty and two men near the parking garage started shouting at each other. I ordered a rideshare. It cost $31, which is a lot when I do this several times a month."
    },
    {
      "role": "assistant",
      "content": "When the bus disappeared from the board, how did you decide whether to keep waiting or find another way home?"
    },
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "At first I didn't trust the app because it has been wrong before. I checked the transit website and the stop's text-message number, but all three gave different information. I texted a coworker who had already left, then watched the intersection for headlights. The argument by the garage was what changed it. I wasn't sure anything would happen, but I felt exposed in my scrubs and didn't want to gamble another half hour. If the rideshare had been much more expensive, I probably would have gone back inside the hospital and tried to find someone finishing later."
    }
  ]
}

import { createClient } from '@runware/sdk'

const client = await createClient({ apiKey: process.env.RUNWARE_API_KEY })
await client.connect()

const [result] = await client.run({
  model: 'anthropic:claude@fable-5',
  settings: {
    splitThinking: false
  },
  inputs: {
    images: [
      'https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/23984bd8-69c5-4848-bda9-6decee5d7f27.jpg'
    ]
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Act as a senior freight-claims surveyor. Analyze the attached receiving-dock photograph and produce a detailed preliminary freight damage assessment suitable for an equipment owner, insurer, and carrier.\n\nGround every finding in visible evidence. Do not invent shipment identifiers, label text, internal damage, dates, costs, dimensions, or events that the photograph cannot establish. Clearly separate direct observations from plausible interpretations, and use uncertainty language where appropriate.\n\nWrite the report in professional Markdown with these sections:\n\n1. Executive summary: shipment condition, apparent severity, and immediate priority.\n2. Visible evidence table with columns for item number, location in image, observed condition, significance, and confidence. Use precise spatial references such as upper right, foreground, or exposed side panel.\n3. Packaging and load-security assessment covering the crate, pallet, bands, wrapping, and any visible displacement.\n4. Equipment condition assessment limited strictly to visible surfaces.\n5. Possible damage mechanisms: rank up to three plausible mechanisms, explain the visible evidence supporting each, and explicitly state that these are hypotheses rather than conclusions.\n6. Immediate preservation actions that receiving staff can take without moving, energizing, opening, or altering the shipment unnecessarily.\n7. Additional evidence required, including recommended photographs, documents, measurements, and inspection steps needed to support a formal claim.\n8. Concise carrier-notification narrative of 120–180 words that can be pasted into an initial notice of damage.\n9. Limitations and recommended escalation.\n\nFlag any safety hazards visible in the scene. If text on labels is unreadable, say so rather than guessing. Do not recommend operating or powering the equipment before inspection.'
    }
  ]
})

import asyncio
import os

from runware import Runware


async def main():
    async with Runware(api_key=os.environ["RUNWARE_API_KEY"]) as client:
        results = await client.run({
            "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
            "settings": {
                "splitThinking": False
            },
            "inputs": {
                "images": [
                    "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/23984bd8-69c5-4848-bda9-6decee5d7f27.jpg"
                ]
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Act as a senior freight-claims surveyor. Analyze the attached receiving-dock photograph and produce a detailed preliminary freight damage assessment suitable for an equipment owner, insurer, and carrier.\n\nGround every finding in visible evidence. Do not invent shipment identifiers, label text, internal damage, dates, costs, dimensions, or events that the photograph cannot establish. Clearly separate direct observations from plausible interpretations, and use uncertainty language where appropriate.\n\nWrite the report in professional Markdown with these sections:\n\n1. Executive summary: shipment condition, apparent severity, and immediate priority.\n2. Visible evidence table with columns for item number, location in image, observed condition, significance, and confidence. Use precise spatial references such as upper right, foreground, or exposed side panel.\n3. Packaging and load-security assessment covering the crate, pallet, bands, wrapping, and any visible displacement.\n4. Equipment condition assessment limited strictly to visible surfaces.\n5. Possible damage mechanisms: rank up to three plausible mechanisms, explain the visible evidence supporting each, and explicitly state that these are hypotheses rather than conclusions.\n6. Immediate preservation actions that receiving staff can take without moving, energizing, opening, or altering the shipment unnecessarily.\n7. Additional evidence required, including recommended photographs, documents, measurements, and inspection steps needed to support a formal claim.\n8. Concise carrier-notification narrative of 120–180 words that can be pasted into an initial notice of damage.\n9. Limitations and recommended escalation.\n\nFlag any safety hazards visible in the scene. If text on labels is unreadable, say so rather than guessing. Do not recommend operating or powering the equipment before inspection."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "83b89a8b-6f95-419e-8235-9d0bdf218c27",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
      "settings": {
        "splitThinking": false
      },
      "inputs": {
        "images": [
          "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/23984bd8-69c5-4848-bda9-6decee5d7f27.jpg"
        ]
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Act as a senior freight-claims surveyor. Analyze the attached receiving-dock photograph and produce a detailed preliminary freight damage assessment suitable for an equipment owner, insurer, and carrier.\n\nGround every finding in visible evidence. Do not invent shipment identifiers, label text, internal damage, dates, costs, dimensions, or events that the photograph cannot establish. Clearly separate direct observations from plausible interpretations, and use uncertainty language where appropriate.\n\nWrite the report in professional Markdown with these sections:\n\n1. Executive summary: shipment condition, apparent severity, and immediate priority.\n2. Visible evidence table with columns for item number, location in image, observed condition, significance, and confidence. Use precise spatial references such as upper right, foreground, or exposed side panel.\n3. Packaging and load-security assessment covering the crate, pallet, bands, wrapping, and any visible displacement.\n4. Equipment condition assessment limited strictly to visible surfaces.\n5. Possible damage mechanisms: rank up to three plausible mechanisms, explain the visible evidence supporting each, and explicitly state that these are hypotheses rather than conclusions.\n6. Immediate preservation actions that receiving staff can take without moving, energizing, opening, or altering the shipment unnecessarily.\n7. Additional evidence required, including recommended photographs, documents, measurements, and inspection steps needed to support a formal claim.\n8. Concise carrier-notification narrative of 120–180 words that can be pasted into an initial notice of damage.\n9. Limitations and recommended escalation.\n\nFlag any safety hazards visible in the scene. If text on labels is unreadable, say so rather than guessing. Do not recommend operating or powering the equipment before inspection."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@fable-5 \
  settings.splitThinking=false \
  inputs.images.0=https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/23984bd8-69c5-4848-bda9-6decee5d7f27.jpg \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Act as a senior freight-claims surveyor. Analyze the attached receiving-dock photograph and produce a detailed preliminary freight damage assessment suitable for an equipment owner, insurer, and carrier.

Ground every finding in visible evidence. Do not invent shipment identifiers, label text, internal damage, dates, costs, dimensions, or events that the photograph cannot establish. Clearly separate direct observations from plausible interpretations, and use uncertainty language where appropriate.

Write the report in professional Markdown with these sections:

1. Executive summary: shipment condition, apparent severity, and immediate priority.
2. Visible evidence table with columns for item number, location in image, observed condition, significance, and confidence. Use precise spatial references such as upper right, foreground, or exposed side panel.
3. Packaging and load-security assessment covering the crate, pallet, bands, wrapping, and any visible displacement.
4. Equipment condition assessment limited strictly to visible surfaces.
5. Possible damage mechanisms: rank up to three plausible mechanisms, explain the visible evidence supporting each, and explicitly state that these are hypotheses rather than conclusions.
6. Immediate preservation actions that receiving staff can take without moving, energizing, opening, or altering the shipment unnecessarily.
7. Additional evidence required, including recommended photographs, documents, measurements, and inspection steps needed to support a formal claim.
8. Concise carrier-notification narrative of 120–180 words that can be pasted into an initial notice of damage.
9. Limitations and recommended escalation.

Flag any safety hazards visible in the scene. If text on labels is unreadable, say so rather than guessing. Do not recommend operating or powering the equipment before inspection."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "83b89a8b-6f95-419e-8235-9d0bdf218c27",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
  "settings": {
    "splitThinking": false
  },
  "inputs": {
    "images": [
      "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/23984bd8-69c5-4848-bda9-6decee5d7f27.jpg"
    ]
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Act as a senior freight-claims surveyor. Analyze the attached receiving-dock photograph and produce a detailed preliminary freight damage assessment suitable for an equipment owner, insurer, and carrier.\n\nGround every finding in visible evidence. Do not invent shipment identifiers, label text, internal damage, dates, costs, dimensions, or events that the photograph cannot establish. Clearly separate direct observations from plausible interpretations, and use uncertainty language where appropriate.\n\nWrite the report in professional Markdown with these sections:\n\n1. Executive summary: shipment condition, apparent severity, and immediate priority.\n2. Visible evidence table with columns for item number, location in image, observed condition, significance, and confidence. Use precise spatial references such as upper right, foreground, or exposed side panel.\n3. Packaging and load-security assessment covering the crate, pallet, bands, wrapping, and any visible displacement.\n4. Equipment condition assessment limited strictly to visible surfaces.\n5. Possible damage mechanisms: rank up to three plausible mechanisms, explain the visible evidence supporting each, and explicitly state that these are hypotheses rather than conclusions.\n6. Immediate preservation actions that receiving staff can take without moving, energizing, opening, or altering the shipment unnecessarily.\n7. Additional evidence required, including recommended photographs, documents, measurements, and inspection steps needed to support a formal claim.\n8. Concise carrier-notification narrative of 120–180 words that can be pasted into an initial notice of damage.\n9. Limitations and recommended escalation.\n\nFlag any safety hazards visible in the scene. If text on labels is unreadable, say so rather than guessing. Do not recommend operating or powering the equipment before inspection."
    }
  ]
}

import { createClient } from '@runware/sdk'

const client = await createClient({ apiKey: process.env.RUNWARE_API_KEY })
await client.connect()

const [result] = await client.run({
  model: 'anthropic:claude@fable-5',
  settings: {
    splitThinking: false
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Write the final donor-facing case statement for the Harbor Point Library Renewal Campaign. This must be a polished, self-contained piece ready for a campaign brochure—not an outline, memo, or commentary on the brief.\n\nProject facts:\n- Harbor Point is a former shipbuilding neighborhood in Baltimore with 18,400 residents.\n- Its 1912 Carnegie library closed in 2019 after repeated roof failures and has remained vacant.\n- The nonprofit Harbor Point Learning Trust acquired the building from the city for $1 under a preservation covenant.\n- The campaign goal is $8.6 million. Of that amount, $5.1 million is already committed through state historic-tax-credit equity, a city capital grant, and two lead foundation gifts. The public phase must raise the remaining $3.5 million.\n- The restored 14,200-square-foot building will include a children’s reading room, a 42-seat digital learning lab, six free tutoring rooms, a flexible community hall, a small-business resource desk, and a quiet room for telehealth appointments and job interviews.\n- The branch will operate six days per week in partnership with the city library system. All core services will be free.\n- Local schools report that 38% of third graders in the service area read at grade level. Thirty-one percent of neighborhood households lack a fixed broadband subscription.\n- Preservation work will retain the limestone façade, original oak doors, terrazzo floors, and the main reading room’s barrel-vaulted ceiling.\n- The design includes an all-electric mechanical system, a new elevator, step-free entry, high-performance interior storm windows, and a rain garden.\n- Construction is scheduled to begin in March 2027 and the library is expected to reopen in autumn 2028.\n- Campaign message: restore a landmark, reopen opportunity.\n\nRequirements:\n- Write 900–1,100 words.\n- Use the title “A Landmark Reopened. A Future Within Reach.”\n- Begin with a vivid 100–140-word opening that places the reader outside the shuttered library on a rainy weekday afternoon, then turns toward possibility. Do not invent a named resident or quote.\n- Organize the remainder under exactly these four subheads: “The Door That Closed,” “What Will Open Here,” “A Building Worth Carrying Forward,” and “The Moment to Act.”\n- Make the case emotionally compelling while remaining credible, specific, and restrained. Use warm, lucid language suitable for individual donors, foundations, and civic partners.\n- Include the campaign figures clearly and explain that $5.1 million is committed and $3.5 million remains to be raised.\n- Connect literacy, broadband access, workforce needs, and preservation without presenting the library as a cure-all.\n- Mention every planned program space at least once, but do not turn the prose into a feature list.\n- Include one short standalone sentence using the campaign message verbatim: “Restore a landmark, reopen opportunity.”\n- End with a direct invitation to give, followed by a final sentence of no more than 12 words.\n- Do not add donor tiers, naming opportunities, testimonials, fabricated quotations, footnotes, citations, contact details, or facts not supplied here.\n- Output only the finished case statement.'
    }
  ]
})

import asyncio
import os

from runware import Runware


async def main():
    async with Runware(api_key=os.environ["RUNWARE_API_KEY"]) as client:
        results = await client.run({
            "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
            "settings": {
                "splitThinking": False
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Write the final donor-facing case statement for the Harbor Point Library Renewal Campaign. This must be a polished, self-contained piece ready for a campaign brochure—not an outline, memo, or commentary on the brief.\n\nProject facts:\n- Harbor Point is a former shipbuilding neighborhood in Baltimore with 18,400 residents.\n- Its 1912 Carnegie library closed in 2019 after repeated roof failures and has remained vacant.\n- The nonprofit Harbor Point Learning Trust acquired the building from the city for $1 under a preservation covenant.\n- The campaign goal is $8.6 million. Of that amount, $5.1 million is already committed through state historic-tax-credit equity, a city capital grant, and two lead foundation gifts. The public phase must raise the remaining $3.5 million.\n- The restored 14,200-square-foot building will include a children’s reading room, a 42-seat digital learning lab, six free tutoring rooms, a flexible community hall, a small-business resource desk, and a quiet room for telehealth appointments and job interviews.\n- The branch will operate six days per week in partnership with the city library system. All core services will be free.\n- Local schools report that 38% of third graders in the service area read at grade level. Thirty-one percent of neighborhood households lack a fixed broadband subscription.\n- Preservation work will retain the limestone façade, original oak doors, terrazzo floors, and the main reading room’s barrel-vaulted ceiling.\n- The design includes an all-electric mechanical system, a new elevator, step-free entry, high-performance interior storm windows, and a rain garden.\n- Construction is scheduled to begin in March 2027 and the library is expected to reopen in autumn 2028.\n- Campaign message: restore a landmark, reopen opportunity.\n\nRequirements:\n- Write 900–1,100 words.\n- Use the title “A Landmark Reopened. A Future Within Reach.”\n- Begin with a vivid 100–140-word opening that places the reader outside the shuttered library on a rainy weekday afternoon, then turns toward possibility. Do not invent a named resident or quote.\n- Organize the remainder under exactly these four subheads: “The Door That Closed,” “What Will Open Here,” “A Building Worth Carrying Forward,” and “The Moment to Act.”\n- Make the case emotionally compelling while remaining credible, specific, and restrained. Use warm, lucid language suitable for individual donors, foundations, and civic partners.\n- Include the campaign figures clearly and explain that $5.1 million is committed and $3.5 million remains to be raised.\n- Connect literacy, broadband access, workforce needs, and preservation without presenting the library as a cure-all.\n- Mention every planned program space at least once, but do not turn the prose into a feature list.\n- Include one short standalone sentence using the campaign message verbatim: “Restore a landmark, reopen opportunity.”\n- End with a direct invitation to give, followed by a final sentence of no more than 12 words.\n- Do not add donor tiers, naming opportunities, testimonials, fabricated quotations, footnotes, citations, contact details, or facts not supplied here.\n- Output only the finished case statement."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "b20e6a28-90d2-433d-a6d5-ce164b632c53",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
      "settings": {
        "splitThinking": false
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Write the final donor-facing case statement for the Harbor Point Library Renewal Campaign. This must be a polished, self-contained piece ready for a campaign brochure—not an outline, memo, or commentary on the brief.\n\nProject facts:\n- Harbor Point is a former shipbuilding neighborhood in Baltimore with 18,400 residents.\n- Its 1912 Carnegie library closed in 2019 after repeated roof failures and has remained vacant.\n- The nonprofit Harbor Point Learning Trust acquired the building from the city for $1 under a preservation covenant.\n- The campaign goal is $8.6 million. Of that amount, $5.1 million is already committed through state historic-tax-credit equity, a city capital grant, and two lead foundation gifts. The public phase must raise the remaining $3.5 million.\n- The restored 14,200-square-foot building will include a children’s reading room, a 42-seat digital learning lab, six free tutoring rooms, a flexible community hall, a small-business resource desk, and a quiet room for telehealth appointments and job interviews.\n- The branch will operate six days per week in partnership with the city library system. All core services will be free.\n- Local schools report that 38% of third graders in the service area read at grade level. Thirty-one percent of neighborhood households lack a fixed broadband subscription.\n- Preservation work will retain the limestone façade, original oak doors, terrazzo floors, and the main reading room’s barrel-vaulted ceiling.\n- The design includes an all-electric mechanical system, a new elevator, step-free entry, high-performance interior storm windows, and a rain garden.\n- Construction is scheduled to begin in March 2027 and the library is expected to reopen in autumn 2028.\n- Campaign message: restore a landmark, reopen opportunity.\n\nRequirements:\n- Write 900–1,100 words.\n- Use the title “A Landmark Reopened. A Future Within Reach.”\n- Begin with a vivid 100–140-word opening that places the reader outside the shuttered library on a rainy weekday afternoon, then turns toward possibility. Do not invent a named resident or quote.\n- Organize the remainder under exactly these four subheads: “The Door That Closed,” “What Will Open Here,” “A Building Worth Carrying Forward,” and “The Moment to Act.”\n- Make the case emotionally compelling while remaining credible, specific, and restrained. Use warm, lucid language suitable for individual donors, foundations, and civic partners.\n- Include the campaign figures clearly and explain that $5.1 million is committed and $3.5 million remains to be raised.\n- Connect literacy, broadband access, workforce needs, and preservation without presenting the library as a cure-all.\n- Mention every planned program space at least once, but do not turn the prose into a feature list.\n- Include one short standalone sentence using the campaign message verbatim: “Restore a landmark, reopen opportunity.”\n- End with a direct invitation to give, followed by a final sentence of no more than 12 words.\n- Do not add donor tiers, naming opportunities, testimonials, fabricated quotations, footnotes, citations, contact details, or facts not supplied here.\n- Output only the finished case statement."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@fable-5 \
  settings.splitThinking=false \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Write the final donor-facing case statement for the Harbor Point Library Renewal Campaign. This must be a polished, self-contained piece ready for a campaign brochure—not an outline, memo, or commentary on the brief.

Project facts:
- Harbor Point is a former shipbuilding neighborhood in Baltimore with 18,400 residents.
- Its 1912 Carnegie library closed in 2019 after repeated roof failures and has remained vacant.
- The nonprofit Harbor Point Learning Trust acquired the building from the city for \$1 under a preservation covenant.
- The campaign goal is \$8.6 million. Of that amount, \$5.1 million is already committed through state historic-tax-credit equity, a city capital grant, and two lead foundation gifts. The public phase must raise the remaining \$3.5 million.
- The restored 14,200-square-foot building will include a children’s reading room, a 42-seat digital learning lab, six free tutoring rooms, a flexible community hall, a small-business resource desk, and a quiet room for telehealth appointments and job interviews.
- The branch will operate six days per week in partnership with the city library system. All core services will be free.
- Local schools report that 38% of third graders in the service area read at grade level. Thirty-one percent of neighborhood households lack a fixed broadband subscription.
- Preservation work will retain the limestone façade, original oak doors, terrazzo floors, and the main reading room’s barrel-vaulted ceiling.
- The design includes an all-electric mechanical system, a new elevator, step-free entry, high-performance interior storm windows, and a rain garden.
- Construction is scheduled to begin in March 2027 and the library is expected to reopen in autumn 2028.
- Campaign message: restore a landmark, reopen opportunity.

Requirements:
- Write 900–1,100 words.
- Use the title “A Landmark Reopened. A Future Within Reach.”
- Begin with a vivid 100–140-word opening that places the reader outside the shuttered library on a rainy weekday afternoon, then turns toward possibility. Do not invent a named resident or quote.
- Organize the remainder under exactly these four subheads: “The Door That Closed,” “What Will Open Here,” “A Building Worth Carrying Forward,” and “The Moment to Act.”
- Make the case emotionally compelling while remaining credible, specific, and restrained. Use warm, lucid language suitable for individual donors, foundations, and civic partners.
- Include the campaign figures clearly and explain that \$5.1 million is committed and \$3.5 million remains to be raised.
- Connect literacy, broadband access, workforce needs, and preservation without presenting the library as a cure-all.
- Mention every planned program space at least once, but do not turn the prose into a feature list.
- Include one short standalone sentence using the campaign message verbatim: “Restore a landmark, reopen opportunity.”
- End with a direct invitation to give, followed by a final sentence of no more than 12 words.
- Do not add donor tiers, naming opportunities, testimonials, fabricated quotations, footnotes, citations, contact details, or facts not supplied here.
- Output only the finished case statement."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "b20e6a28-90d2-433d-a6d5-ce164b632c53",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
  "settings": {
    "splitThinking": false
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Write the final donor-facing case statement for the Harbor Point Library Renewal Campaign. This must be a polished, self-contained piece ready for a campaign brochure—not an outline, memo, or commentary on the brief.\n\nProject facts:\n- Harbor Point is a former shipbuilding neighborhood in Baltimore with 18,400 residents.\n- Its 1912 Carnegie library closed in 2019 after repeated roof failures and has remained vacant.\n- The nonprofit Harbor Point Learning Trust acquired the building from the city for $1 under a preservation covenant.\n- The campaign goal is $8.6 million. Of that amount, $5.1 million is already committed through state historic-tax-credit equity, a city capital grant, and two lead foundation gifts. The public phase must raise the remaining $3.5 million.\n- The restored 14,200-square-foot building will include a children’s reading room, a 42-seat digital learning lab, six free tutoring rooms, a flexible community hall, a small-business resource desk, and a quiet room for telehealth appointments and job interviews.\n- The branch will operate six days per week in partnership with the city library system. All core services will be free.\n- Local schools report that 38% of third graders in the service area read at grade level. Thirty-one percent of neighborhood households lack a fixed broadband subscription.\n- Preservation work will retain the limestone façade, original oak doors, terrazzo floors, and the main reading room’s barrel-vaulted ceiling.\n- The design includes an all-electric mechanical system, a new elevator, step-free entry, high-performance interior storm windows, and a rain garden.\n- Construction is scheduled to begin in March 2027 and the library is expected to reopen in autumn 2028.\n- Campaign message: restore a landmark, reopen opportunity.\n\nRequirements:\n- Write 900–1,100 words.\n- Use the title “A Landmark Reopened. A Future Within Reach.”\n- Begin with a vivid 100–140-word opening that places the reader outside the shuttered library on a rainy weekday afternoon, then turns toward possibility. Do not invent a named resident or quote.\n- Organize the remainder under exactly these four subheads: “The Door That Closed,” “What Will Open Here,” “A Building Worth Carrying Forward,” and “The Moment to Act.”\n- Make the case emotionally compelling while remaining credible, specific, and restrained. Use warm, lucid language suitable for individual donors, foundations, and civic partners.\n- Include the campaign figures clearly and explain that $5.1 million is committed and $3.5 million remains to be raised.\n- Connect literacy, broadband access, workforce needs, and preservation without presenting the library as a cure-all.\n- Mention every planned program space at least once, but do not turn the prose into a feature list.\n- Include one short standalone sentence using the campaign message verbatim: “Restore a landmark, reopen opportunity.”\n- End with a direct invitation to give, followed by a final sentence of no more than 12 words.\n- Do not add donor tiers, naming opportunities, testimonials, fabricated quotations, footnotes, citations, contact details, or facts not supplied here.\n- Output only the finished case statement."
    }
  ]
}

import { createClient } from '@runware/sdk'

const client = await createClient({ apiKey: process.env.RUNWARE_API_KEY })
await client.connect()

const [result] = await client.run({
  model: 'anthropic:claude@fable-5',
  settings: {
    systemPrompt: 'You are a senior site reliability engineer writing internal incident reviews for a B2B SaaS company. Produce precise, blameless postmortems that distinguish confirmed facts from hypotheses. Reconcile timestamps, quantify impact, explain contributing conditions without attributing fault to individuals, and turn lessons into specific corrective actions. Do not invent evidence, metrics, owners, or deadlines. Flag unresolved questions explicitly. Write for both engineering leaders and executives.',
    maxTokens: 6000,
    thinkingLevel: 'high',
    splitThinking: true
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Create the final postmortem for incident INC-2471 from the raw notes below.\n\nINCIDENT: EU API request failures after database failover\nDATE: 17 June 2026\nSEVERITY: SEV-1\n\nRAW NOTES\n- 09:02 UTC: eu-west PostgreSQL primary entered storage-degraded state. Managed database service initiated automatic failover.\n- 09:04: New primary reported healthy. Database dashboard showed replication complete.\n- 09:05: API 5xx alert fired at 18% for EU traffic. Normal baseline is below 0.2%.\n- 09:07: On-call acknowledged. Error samples: `remaining connection slots are reserved` and application-side pool acquisition timeouts.\n- 09:10: Customer support reported failed checkout and inventory-sync requests from several EU retail customers.\n- 09:12: Engineers initially suspected the new primary had a lower connection limit. This was checked and disproved at 09:18; configuration matched the former primary.\n- 09:16: EU API pods increased from 120 to 210 because the latency-based autoscaler interpreted blocked database calls as demand. Each pod may open up to 20 database connections.\n- 09:19: Team paused further API scaling. New pods already running remained in service.\n- 09:23: Database connection count was approximately 3,950 against a 4,000 limit.\n- 09:25: Engineers discovered that connections to the former primary were not being retired promptly after DNS changed. The client library caches resolved addresses for 15 minutes, and the pool health check validates TCP connectivity but does not verify that the server is still writable.\n- 09:28: Connection-pool maximum reduced from 20 to 8 through emergency configuration.\n- 09:33: Rolling restart of EU API pods began to clear stale pools.\n- 09:41: 5xx rate fell below 2%.\n- 09:47: 5xx rate returned below 0.2%. Checkout backlog processing began automatically.\n- 10:05: Backlog cleared. Incident remained open for monitoring.\n- 10:30: Incident resolved.\n\nIMPACT DATA\n- Customer-visible degradation: 09:05–09:47 UTC, 42 minutes.\n- 31% of EU API requests failed or timed out during the window; US and APAC were unaffected.\n- Approximately 84,000 failed requests across 146 customer organizations.\n- 12,430 checkout submissions initially failed. Client retries later recovered 9,870. The remaining 2,560 required customers to resubmit.\n- No confirmed data loss, duplicate charges, or security impact.\n- Inventory synchronization was delayed by up to 38 minutes.\n- Contractual SLA impact is still being assessed by Legal and Customer Success.\n\nCONTEXT\n- DNS TTL for the database endpoint is 30 seconds, but the Java database client uses a process-level DNS cache configured to 900 seconds.\n- The 900-second setting was introduced two years ago to reduce resolver latency during an unrelated DNS incident.\n- Failover testing in staging checks database recovery and basic API health with 10 pods. It does not test production-scale connection behavior or autoscaling interaction.\n- The latency-based autoscaler has no guardrail tied to database connection saturation.\n- Runbook says to verify database health after failover but does not mention stale client pools, DNS caching, or temporarily suspending autoscaling.\n\nDRAFT ACTIONS\n1. Platform: reduce Java DNS cache from 900 seconds to 30 seconds; proposed due June 20.\n2. Database team: change pool health checks to verify writable-primary status; feasibility unknown.\n3. SRE: add autoscaling guardrail based on database connection utilization; no date yet.\n4. Reliability engineering: build a production-scale failover test using synthetic traffic; target Q3.\n5. SRE: update failover runbook with autoscaling pause and rolling-restart procedure; proposed due June 24.\n6. Observability: alert when connections exceed 80% of database capacity; proposed due June 21.\n7. Customer Success and Legal: complete SLA review; due June 19.\n\nREQUIRED STRUCTURE\n1. Executive summary\n2. Customer and business impact\n3. Detection and response\n4. Detailed UTC timeline\n5. Root cause\n6. Contributing factors\n7. What went well\n8. What did not go well\n9. Corrective and preventive actions as a table with priority, action, owner, deadline, and status\n10. Open questions\n11. Lessons learned\n\nKeep the report between 1,200 and 1,800 words. Use exact figures where supplied. Label proposed deadlines and unconfirmed conclusions clearly. Do not claim that reducing the DNS cache alone fully prevents recurrence.'
    }
  ]
})

import asyncio
import os

from runware import Runware


async def main():
    async with Runware(api_key=os.environ["RUNWARE_API_KEY"]) as client:
        results = await client.run({
            "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
            "settings": {
                "systemPrompt": "You are a senior site reliability engineer writing internal incident reviews for a B2B SaaS company. Produce precise, blameless postmortems that distinguish confirmed facts from hypotheses. Reconcile timestamps, quantify impact, explain contributing conditions without attributing fault to individuals, and turn lessons into specific corrective actions. Do not invent evidence, metrics, owners, or deadlines. Flag unresolved questions explicitly. Write for both engineering leaders and executives.",
                "maxTokens": 6000,
                "thinkingLevel": "high",
                "splitThinking": True
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Create the final postmortem for incident INC-2471 from the raw notes below.\n\nINCIDENT: EU API request failures after database failover\nDATE: 17 June 2026\nSEVERITY: SEV-1\n\nRAW NOTES\n- 09:02 UTC: eu-west PostgreSQL primary entered storage-degraded state. Managed database service initiated automatic failover.\n- 09:04: New primary reported healthy. Database dashboard showed replication complete.\n- 09:05: API 5xx alert fired at 18% for EU traffic. Normal baseline is below 0.2%.\n- 09:07: On-call acknowledged. Error samples: `remaining connection slots are reserved` and application-side pool acquisition timeouts.\n- 09:10: Customer support reported failed checkout and inventory-sync requests from several EU retail customers.\n- 09:12: Engineers initially suspected the new primary had a lower connection limit. This was checked and disproved at 09:18; configuration matched the former primary.\n- 09:16: EU API pods increased from 120 to 210 because the latency-based autoscaler interpreted blocked database calls as demand. Each pod may open up to 20 database connections.\n- 09:19: Team paused further API scaling. New pods already running remained in service.\n- 09:23: Database connection count was approximately 3,950 against a 4,000 limit.\n- 09:25: Engineers discovered that connections to the former primary were not being retired promptly after DNS changed. The client library caches resolved addresses for 15 minutes, and the pool health check validates TCP connectivity but does not verify that the server is still writable.\n- 09:28: Connection-pool maximum reduced from 20 to 8 through emergency configuration.\n- 09:33: Rolling restart of EU API pods began to clear stale pools.\n- 09:41: 5xx rate fell below 2%.\n- 09:47: 5xx rate returned below 0.2%. Checkout backlog processing began automatically.\n- 10:05: Backlog cleared. Incident remained open for monitoring.\n- 10:30: Incident resolved.\n\nIMPACT DATA\n- Customer-visible degradation: 09:05–09:47 UTC, 42 minutes.\n- 31% of EU API requests failed or timed out during the window; US and APAC were unaffected.\n- Approximately 84,000 failed requests across 146 customer organizations.\n- 12,430 checkout submissions initially failed. Client retries later recovered 9,870. The remaining 2,560 required customers to resubmit.\n- No confirmed data loss, duplicate charges, or security impact.\n- Inventory synchronization was delayed by up to 38 minutes.\n- Contractual SLA impact is still being assessed by Legal and Customer Success.\n\nCONTEXT\n- DNS TTL for the database endpoint is 30 seconds, but the Java database client uses a process-level DNS cache configured to 900 seconds.\n- The 900-second setting was introduced two years ago to reduce resolver latency during an unrelated DNS incident.\n- Failover testing in staging checks database recovery and basic API health with 10 pods. It does not test production-scale connection behavior or autoscaling interaction.\n- The latency-based autoscaler has no guardrail tied to database connection saturation.\n- Runbook says to verify database health after failover but does not mention stale client pools, DNS caching, or temporarily suspending autoscaling.\n\nDRAFT ACTIONS\n1. Platform: reduce Java DNS cache from 900 seconds to 30 seconds; proposed due June 20.\n2. Database team: change pool health checks to verify writable-primary status; feasibility unknown.\n3. SRE: add autoscaling guardrail based on database connection utilization; no date yet.\n4. Reliability engineering: build a production-scale failover test using synthetic traffic; target Q3.\n5. SRE: update failover runbook with autoscaling pause and rolling-restart procedure; proposed due June 24.\n6. Observability: alert when connections exceed 80% of database capacity; proposed due June 21.\n7. Customer Success and Legal: complete SLA review; due June 19.\n\nREQUIRED STRUCTURE\n1. Executive summary\n2. Customer and business impact\n3. Detection and response\n4. Detailed UTC timeline\n5. Root cause\n6. Contributing factors\n7. What went well\n8. What did not go well\n9. Corrective and preventive actions as a table with priority, action, owner, deadline, and status\n10. Open questions\n11. Lessons learned\n\nKeep the report between 1,200 and 1,800 words. Use exact figures where supplied. Label proposed deadlines and unconfirmed conclusions clearly. Do not claim that reducing the DNS cache alone fully prevents recurrence."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "637970f2-38c6-4646-91a7-63bcaf4e57ed",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
      "settings": {
        "systemPrompt": "You are a senior site reliability engineer writing internal incident reviews for a B2B SaaS company. Produce precise, blameless postmortems that distinguish confirmed facts from hypotheses. Reconcile timestamps, quantify impact, explain contributing conditions without attributing fault to individuals, and turn lessons into specific corrective actions. Do not invent evidence, metrics, owners, or deadlines. Flag unresolved questions explicitly. Write for both engineering leaders and executives.",
        "maxTokens": 6000,
        "thinkingLevel": "high",
        "splitThinking": true
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Create the final postmortem for incident INC-2471 from the raw notes below.\n\nINCIDENT: EU API request failures after database failover\nDATE: 17 June 2026\nSEVERITY: SEV-1\n\nRAW NOTES\n- 09:02 UTC: eu-west PostgreSQL primary entered storage-degraded state. Managed database service initiated automatic failover.\n- 09:04: New primary reported healthy. Database dashboard showed replication complete.\n- 09:05: API 5xx alert fired at 18% for EU traffic. Normal baseline is below 0.2%.\n- 09:07: On-call acknowledged. Error samples: `remaining connection slots are reserved` and application-side pool acquisition timeouts.\n- 09:10: Customer support reported failed checkout and inventory-sync requests from several EU retail customers.\n- 09:12: Engineers initially suspected the new primary had a lower connection limit. This was checked and disproved at 09:18; configuration matched the former primary.\n- 09:16: EU API pods increased from 120 to 210 because the latency-based autoscaler interpreted blocked database calls as demand. Each pod may open up to 20 database connections.\n- 09:19: Team paused further API scaling. New pods already running remained in service.\n- 09:23: Database connection count was approximately 3,950 against a 4,000 limit.\n- 09:25: Engineers discovered that connections to the former primary were not being retired promptly after DNS changed. The client library caches resolved addresses for 15 minutes, and the pool health check validates TCP connectivity but does not verify that the server is still writable.\n- 09:28: Connection-pool maximum reduced from 20 to 8 through emergency configuration.\n- 09:33: Rolling restart of EU API pods began to clear stale pools.\n- 09:41: 5xx rate fell below 2%.\n- 09:47: 5xx rate returned below 0.2%. Checkout backlog processing began automatically.\n- 10:05: Backlog cleared. Incident remained open for monitoring.\n- 10:30: Incident resolved.\n\nIMPACT DATA\n- Customer-visible degradation: 09:05–09:47 UTC, 42 minutes.\n- 31% of EU API requests failed or timed out during the window; US and APAC were unaffected.\n- Approximately 84,000 failed requests across 146 customer organizations.\n- 12,430 checkout submissions initially failed. Client retries later recovered 9,870. The remaining 2,560 required customers to resubmit.\n- No confirmed data loss, duplicate charges, or security impact.\n- Inventory synchronization was delayed by up to 38 minutes.\n- Contractual SLA impact is still being assessed by Legal and Customer Success.\n\nCONTEXT\n- DNS TTL for the database endpoint is 30 seconds, but the Java database client uses a process-level DNS cache configured to 900 seconds.\n- The 900-second setting was introduced two years ago to reduce resolver latency during an unrelated DNS incident.\n- Failover testing in staging checks database recovery and basic API health with 10 pods. It does not test production-scale connection behavior or autoscaling interaction.\n- The latency-based autoscaler has no guardrail tied to database connection saturation.\n- Runbook says to verify database health after failover but does not mention stale client pools, DNS caching, or temporarily suspending autoscaling.\n\nDRAFT ACTIONS\n1. Platform: reduce Java DNS cache from 900 seconds to 30 seconds; proposed due June 20.\n2. Database team: change pool health checks to verify writable-primary status; feasibility unknown.\n3. SRE: add autoscaling guardrail based on database connection utilization; no date yet.\n4. Reliability engineering: build a production-scale failover test using synthetic traffic; target Q3.\n5. SRE: update failover runbook with autoscaling pause and rolling-restart procedure; proposed due June 24.\n6. Observability: alert when connections exceed 80% of database capacity; proposed due June 21.\n7. Customer Success and Legal: complete SLA review; due June 19.\n\nREQUIRED STRUCTURE\n1. Executive summary\n2. Customer and business impact\n3. Detection and response\n4. Detailed UTC timeline\n5. Root cause\n6. Contributing factors\n7. What went well\n8. What did not go well\n9. Corrective and preventive actions as a table with priority, action, owner, deadline, and status\n10. Open questions\n11. Lessons learned\n\nKeep the report between 1,200 and 1,800 words. Use exact figures where supplied. Label proposed deadlines and unconfirmed conclusions clearly. Do not claim that reducing the DNS cache alone fully prevents recurrence."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@fable-5 \
  settings.systemPrompt="You are a senior site reliability engineer writing internal incident reviews for a B2B SaaS company. Produce precise, blameless postmortems that distinguish confirmed facts from hypotheses. Reconcile timestamps, quantify impact, explain contributing conditions without attributing fault to individuals, and turn lessons into specific corrective actions. Do not invent evidence, metrics, owners, or deadlines. Flag unresolved questions explicitly. Write for both engineering leaders and executives." \
  settings.maxTokens=6000 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=high \
  settings.splitThinking=true \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Create the final postmortem for incident INC-2471 from the raw notes below.

INCIDENT: EU API request failures after database failover
DATE: 17 June 2026
SEVERITY: SEV-1

RAW NOTES
- 09:02 UTC: eu-west PostgreSQL primary entered storage-degraded state. Managed database service initiated automatic failover.
- 09:04: New primary reported healthy. Database dashboard showed replication complete.
- 09:05: API 5xx alert fired at 18% for EU traffic. Normal baseline is below 0.2%.
- 09:07: On-call acknowledged. Error samples: \`remaining connection slots are reserved\` and application-side pool acquisition timeouts.
- 09:10: Customer support reported failed checkout and inventory-sync requests from several EU retail customers.
- 09:12: Engineers initially suspected the new primary had a lower connection limit. This was checked and disproved at 09:18; configuration matched the former primary.
- 09:16: EU API pods increased from 120 to 210 because the latency-based autoscaler interpreted blocked database calls as demand. Each pod may open up to 20 database connections.
- 09:19: Team paused further API scaling. New pods already running remained in service.
- 09:23: Database connection count was approximately 3,950 against a 4,000 limit.
- 09:25: Engineers discovered that connections to the former primary were not being retired promptly after DNS changed. The client library caches resolved addresses for 15 minutes, and the pool health check validates TCP connectivity but does not verify that the server is still writable.
- 09:28: Connection-pool maximum reduced from 20 to 8 through emergency configuration.
- 09:33: Rolling restart of EU API pods began to clear stale pools.
- 09:41: 5xx rate fell below 2%.
- 09:47: 5xx rate returned below 0.2%. Checkout backlog processing began automatically.
- 10:05: Backlog cleared. Incident remained open for monitoring.
- 10:30: Incident resolved.

IMPACT DATA
- Customer-visible degradation: 09:05–09:47 UTC, 42 minutes.
- 31% of EU API requests failed or timed out during the window; US and APAC were unaffected.
- Approximately 84,000 failed requests across 146 customer organizations.
- 12,430 checkout submissions initially failed. Client retries later recovered 9,870. The remaining 2,560 required customers to resubmit.
- No confirmed data loss, duplicate charges, or security impact.
- Inventory synchronization was delayed by up to 38 minutes.
- Contractual SLA impact is still being assessed by Legal and Customer Success.

CONTEXT
- DNS TTL for the database endpoint is 30 seconds, but the Java database client uses a process-level DNS cache configured to 900 seconds.
- The 900-second setting was introduced two years ago to reduce resolver latency during an unrelated DNS incident.
- Failover testing in staging checks database recovery and basic API health with 10 pods. It does not test production-scale connection behavior or autoscaling interaction.
- The latency-based autoscaler has no guardrail tied to database connection saturation.
- Runbook says to verify database health after failover but does not mention stale client pools, DNS caching, or temporarily suspending autoscaling.

DRAFT ACTIONS
1. Platform: reduce Java DNS cache from 900 seconds to 30 seconds; proposed due June 20.
2. Database team: change pool health checks to verify writable-primary status; feasibility unknown.
3. SRE: add autoscaling guardrail based on database connection utilization; no date yet.
4. Reliability engineering: build a production-scale failover test using synthetic traffic; target Q3.
5. SRE: update failover runbook with autoscaling pause and rolling-restart procedure; proposed due June 24.
6. Observability: alert when connections exceed 80% of database capacity; proposed due June 21.
7. Customer Success and Legal: complete SLA review; due June 19.

REQUIRED STRUCTURE
1. Executive summary
2. Customer and business impact
3. Detection and response
4. Detailed UTC timeline
5. Root cause
6. Contributing factors
7. What went well
8. What did not go well
9. Corrective and preventive actions as a table with priority, action, owner, deadline, and status
10. Open questions
11. Lessons learned

Keep the report between 1,200 and 1,800 words. Use exact figures where supplied. Label proposed deadlines and unconfirmed conclusions clearly. Do not claim that reducing the DNS cache alone fully prevents recurrence."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "637970f2-38c6-4646-91a7-63bcaf4e57ed",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
  "settings": {
    "systemPrompt": "You are a senior site reliability engineer writing internal incident reviews for a B2B SaaS company. Produce precise, blameless postmortems that distinguish confirmed facts from hypotheses. Reconcile timestamps, quantify impact, explain contributing conditions without attributing fault to individuals, and turn lessons into specific corrective actions. Do not invent evidence, metrics, owners, or deadlines. Flag unresolved questions explicitly. Write for both engineering leaders and executives.",
    "maxTokens": 6000,
    "thinkingLevel": "high",
    "splitThinking": true
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Create the final postmortem for incident INC-2471 from the raw notes below.\n\nINCIDENT: EU API request failures after database failover\nDATE: 17 June 2026\nSEVERITY: SEV-1\n\nRAW NOTES\n- 09:02 UTC: eu-west PostgreSQL primary entered storage-degraded state. Managed database service initiated automatic failover.\n- 09:04: New primary reported healthy. Database dashboard showed replication complete.\n- 09:05: API 5xx alert fired at 18% for EU traffic. Normal baseline is below 0.2%.\n- 09:07: On-call acknowledged. Error samples: `remaining connection slots are reserved` and application-side pool acquisition timeouts.\n- 09:10: Customer support reported failed checkout and inventory-sync requests from several EU retail customers.\n- 09:12: Engineers initially suspected the new primary had a lower connection limit. This was checked and disproved at 09:18; configuration matched the former primary.\n- 09:16: EU API pods increased from 120 to 210 because the latency-based autoscaler interpreted blocked database calls as demand. Each pod may open up to 20 database connections.\n- 09:19: Team paused further API scaling. New pods already running remained in service.\n- 09:23: Database connection count was approximately 3,950 against a 4,000 limit.\n- 09:25: Engineers discovered that connections to the former primary were not being retired promptly after DNS changed. The client library caches resolved addresses for 15 minutes, and the pool health check validates TCP connectivity but does not verify that the server is still writable.\n- 09:28: Connection-pool maximum reduced from 20 to 8 through emergency configuration.\n- 09:33: Rolling restart of EU API pods began to clear stale pools.\n- 09:41: 5xx rate fell below 2%.\n- 09:47: 5xx rate returned below 0.2%. Checkout backlog processing began automatically.\n- 10:05: Backlog cleared. Incident remained open for monitoring.\n- 10:30: Incident resolved.\n\nIMPACT DATA\n- Customer-visible degradation: 09:05–09:47 UTC, 42 minutes.\n- 31% of EU API requests failed or timed out during the window; US and APAC were unaffected.\n- Approximately 84,000 failed requests across 146 customer organizations.\n- 12,430 checkout submissions initially failed. Client retries later recovered 9,870. The remaining 2,560 required customers to resubmit.\n- No confirmed data loss, duplicate charges, or security impact.\n- Inventory synchronization was delayed by up to 38 minutes.\n- Contractual SLA impact is still being assessed by Legal and Customer Success.\n\nCONTEXT\n- DNS TTL for the database endpoint is 30 seconds, but the Java database client uses a process-level DNS cache configured to 900 seconds.\n- The 900-second setting was introduced two years ago to reduce resolver latency during an unrelated DNS incident.\n- Failover testing in staging checks database recovery and basic API health with 10 pods. It does not test production-scale connection behavior or autoscaling interaction.\n- The latency-based autoscaler has no guardrail tied to database connection saturation.\n- Runbook says to verify database health after failover but does not mention stale client pools, DNS caching, or temporarily suspending autoscaling.\n\nDRAFT ACTIONS\n1. Platform: reduce Java DNS cache from 900 seconds to 30 seconds; proposed due June 20.\n2. Database team: change pool health checks to verify writable-primary status; feasibility unknown.\n3. SRE: add autoscaling guardrail based on database connection utilization; no date yet.\n4. Reliability engineering: build a production-scale failover test using synthetic traffic; target Q3.\n5. SRE: update failover runbook with autoscaling pause and rolling-restart procedure; proposed due June 24.\n6. Observability: alert when connections exceed 80% of database capacity; proposed due June 21.\n7. Customer Success and Legal: complete SLA review; due June 19.\n\nREQUIRED STRUCTURE\n1. Executive summary\n2. Customer and business impact\n3. Detection and response\n4. Detailed UTC timeline\n5. Root cause\n6. Contributing factors\n7. What went well\n8. What did not go well\n9. Corrective and preventive actions as a table with priority, action, owner, deadline, and status\n10. Open questions\n11. Lessons learned\n\nKeep the report between 1,200 and 1,800 words. Use exact figures where supplied. Label proposed deadlines and unconfirmed conclusions clearly. Do not claim that reducing the DNS cache alone fully prevents recurrence."
    }
  ]
}

import { createClient } from '@runware/sdk'

const client = await createClient({ apiKey: process.env.RUNWARE_API_KEY })
await client.connect()

const [result] = await client.run({
  model: 'anthropic:claude@fable-5',
  settings: {
    systemPrompt: 'You are a senior residential real-estate copywriter and meticulous visual analyst. Produce persuasive but accurate listing materials grounded only in the supplied photographs and verified facts. Never infer condition, dimensions, neighborhood qualities, school quality, construction materials, accessibility, or amenities that are not clearly supported. Follow U.S. Fair Housing advertising principles: describe the property, not the ideal buyer or resident. Clearly flag anything an agent should verify before publication.',
    maxTokens: 3500,
    thinkingLevel: 'high',
    splitThinking: true
  },
  inputs: {
    images: [
      'https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/411872ff-1865-45ad-b4e0-085c8cf15e8e.jpg',
      'https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/22be5e17-f4f1-4110-9b5a-17d50acfd585.jpg',
      'https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/0338e92a-56a8-4a18-beb5-6d1c39a60fe0.jpg',
      'https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/e9256fcd-84d2-48c9-8531-3b2d108ad4a3.jpg'
    ]
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Create a complete MLS-ready listing package for the home shown in the four attached photographs, in their supplied order.\n\nVerified property facts:\n- Location: Oak Park, Illinois\n- Property type: detached single-family home\n- Built: 1928\n- Bedrooms: 3\n- Bathrooms: 2 full and 1 half\n- Interior area: 2,140 square feet\n- Lot: 50 by 171 feet\n- Parking: detached two-car garage\n- Renovation: kitchen and primary bathroom updated in 2024\n- Additional spaces: finished basement office and second-floor sunroom\n- Heating and cooling: radiator heat and central air conditioning\n- Asking price: $725,000\n\nFirst, inspect the photographs carefully and identify only visually supportable architectural, material, lighting, landscaping, and design details. Then deliver:\n\n1. A refined listing headline of no more than 10 words.\n2. Public remarks of 180–220 words, suitable for an MLS and brokerage website. Open with the property\'s strongest differentiator, balance original character with the verified updates, and end with a concrete description of the outdoor space. Do not use clichés such as “won\'t last,” “dream home,” “perfect for,” or “steps from.”\n3. Eight concise feature highlights, each no longer than 12 words.\n4. One publication-ready caption for each photograph, labeled Photo 1 through Photo 4. Captions must describe what is actually visible rather than repeating generic sales language.\n5. A private agent verification checklist containing any visual observations that could be mistaken, ambiguous, or require confirmation before publication.\n\nUse polished American English and clear section headings. Do not invent proximity claims, appliance brands, room dimensions, school information, transit access, historical designations, or neighborhood character.'
    }
  ]
})

import asyncio
import os

from runware import Runware


async def main():
    async with Runware(api_key=os.environ["RUNWARE_API_KEY"]) as client:
        results = await client.run({
            "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
            "settings": {
                "systemPrompt": "You are a senior residential real-estate copywriter and meticulous visual analyst. Produce persuasive but accurate listing materials grounded only in the supplied photographs and verified facts. Never infer condition, dimensions, neighborhood qualities, school quality, construction materials, accessibility, or amenities that are not clearly supported. Follow U.S. Fair Housing advertising principles: describe the property, not the ideal buyer or resident. Clearly flag anything an agent should verify before publication.",
                "maxTokens": 3500,
                "thinkingLevel": "high",
                "splitThinking": True
            },
            "inputs": {
                "images": [
                    "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/411872ff-1865-45ad-b4e0-085c8cf15e8e.jpg",
                    "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/22be5e17-f4f1-4110-9b5a-17d50acfd585.jpg",
                    "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/0338e92a-56a8-4a18-beb5-6d1c39a60fe0.jpg",
                    "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/e9256fcd-84d2-48c9-8531-3b2d108ad4a3.jpg"
                ]
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Create a complete MLS-ready listing package for the home shown in the four attached photographs, in their supplied order.\n\nVerified property facts:\n- Location: Oak Park, Illinois\n- Property type: detached single-family home\n- Built: 1928\n- Bedrooms: 3\n- Bathrooms: 2 full and 1 half\n- Interior area: 2,140 square feet\n- Lot: 50 by 171 feet\n- Parking: detached two-car garage\n- Renovation: kitchen and primary bathroom updated in 2024\n- Additional spaces: finished basement office and second-floor sunroom\n- Heating and cooling: radiator heat and central air conditioning\n- Asking price: $725,000\n\nFirst, inspect the photographs carefully and identify only visually supportable architectural, material, lighting, landscaping, and design details. Then deliver:\n\n1. A refined listing headline of no more than 10 words.\n2. Public remarks of 180–220 words, suitable for an MLS and brokerage website. Open with the property's strongest differentiator, balance original character with the verified updates, and end with a concrete description of the outdoor space. Do not use clichés such as “won't last,” “dream home,” “perfect for,” or “steps from.”\n3. Eight concise feature highlights, each no longer than 12 words.\n4. One publication-ready caption for each photograph, labeled Photo 1 through Photo 4. Captions must describe what is actually visible rather than repeating generic sales language.\n5. A private agent verification checklist containing any visual observations that could be mistaken, ambiguous, or require confirmation before publication.\n\nUse polished American English and clear section headings. Do not invent proximity claims, appliance brands, room dimensions, school information, transit access, historical designations, or neighborhood character."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "29c2fb73-7687-4caa-b2b7-e746291ab9b0",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
      "settings": {
        "systemPrompt": "You are a senior residential real-estate copywriter and meticulous visual analyst. Produce persuasive but accurate listing materials grounded only in the supplied photographs and verified facts. Never infer condition, dimensions, neighborhood qualities, school quality, construction materials, accessibility, or amenities that are not clearly supported. Follow U.S. Fair Housing advertising principles: describe the property, not the ideal buyer or resident. Clearly flag anything an agent should verify before publication.",
        "maxTokens": 3500,
        "thinkingLevel": "high",
        "splitThinking": true
      },
      "inputs": {
        "images": [
          "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/411872ff-1865-45ad-b4e0-085c8cf15e8e.jpg",
          "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/22be5e17-f4f1-4110-9b5a-17d50acfd585.jpg",
          "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/0338e92a-56a8-4a18-beb5-6d1c39a60fe0.jpg",
          "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/e9256fcd-84d2-48c9-8531-3b2d108ad4a3.jpg"
        ]
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Create a complete MLS-ready listing package for the home shown in the four attached photographs, in their supplied order.\n\nVerified property facts:\n- Location: Oak Park, Illinois\n- Property type: detached single-family home\n- Built: 1928\n- Bedrooms: 3\n- Bathrooms: 2 full and 1 half\n- Interior area: 2,140 square feet\n- Lot: 50 by 171 feet\n- Parking: detached two-car garage\n- Renovation: kitchen and primary bathroom updated in 2024\n- Additional spaces: finished basement office and second-floor sunroom\n- Heating and cooling: radiator heat and central air conditioning\n- Asking price: $725,000\n\nFirst, inspect the photographs carefully and identify only visually supportable architectural, material, lighting, landscaping, and design details. Then deliver:\n\n1. A refined listing headline of no more than 10 words.\n2. Public remarks of 180–220 words, suitable for an MLS and brokerage website. Open with the property's strongest differentiator, balance original character with the verified updates, and end with a concrete description of the outdoor space. Do not use clichés such as “won't last,” “dream home,” “perfect for,” or “steps from.”\n3. Eight concise feature highlights, each no longer than 12 words.\n4. One publication-ready caption for each photograph, labeled Photo 1 through Photo 4. Captions must describe what is actually visible rather than repeating generic sales language.\n5. A private agent verification checklist containing any visual observations that could be mistaken, ambiguous, or require confirmation before publication.\n\nUse polished American English and clear section headings. Do not invent proximity claims, appliance brands, room dimensions, school information, transit access, historical designations, or neighborhood character."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@fable-5 \
  settings.systemPrompt="You are a senior residential real-estate copywriter and meticulous visual analyst. Produce persuasive but accurate listing materials grounded only in the supplied photographs and verified facts. Never infer condition, dimensions, neighborhood qualities, school quality, construction materials, accessibility, or amenities that are not clearly supported. Follow U.S. Fair Housing advertising principles: describe the property, not the ideal buyer or resident. Clearly flag anything an agent should verify before publication." \
  settings.maxTokens=3500 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=high \
  settings.splitThinking=true \
  inputs.images.0=https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/411872ff-1865-45ad-b4e0-085c8cf15e8e.jpg \
  inputs.images.1=https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/22be5e17-f4f1-4110-9b5a-17d50acfd585.jpg \
  inputs.images.2=https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/0338e92a-56a8-4a18-beb5-6d1c39a60fe0.jpg \
  inputs.images.3=https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/e9256fcd-84d2-48c9-8531-3b2d108ad4a3.jpg \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Create a complete MLS-ready listing package for the home shown in the four attached photographs, in their supplied order.

Verified property facts:
- Location: Oak Park, Illinois
- Property type: detached single-family home
- Built: 1928
- Bedrooms: 3
- Bathrooms: 2 full and 1 half
- Interior area: 2,140 square feet
- Lot: 50 by 171 feet
- Parking: detached two-car garage
- Renovation: kitchen and primary bathroom updated in 2024
- Additional spaces: finished basement office and second-floor sunroom
- Heating and cooling: radiator heat and central air conditioning
- Asking price: \$725,000

First, inspect the photographs carefully and identify only visually supportable architectural, material, lighting, landscaping, and design details. Then deliver:

1. A refined listing headline of no more than 10 words.
2. Public remarks of 180–220 words, suitable for an MLS and brokerage website. Open with the property's strongest differentiator, balance original character with the verified updates, and end with a concrete description of the outdoor space. Do not use clichés such as “won't last,” “dream home,” “perfect for,” or “steps from.”
3. Eight concise feature highlights, each no longer than 12 words.
4. One publication-ready caption for each photograph, labeled Photo 1 through Photo 4. Captions must describe what is actually visible rather than repeating generic sales language.
5. A private agent verification checklist containing any visual observations that could be mistaken, ambiguous, or require confirmation before publication.

Use polished American English and clear section headings. Do not invent proximity claims, appliance brands, room dimensions, school information, transit access, historical designations, or neighborhood character."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "29c2fb73-7687-4caa-b2b7-e746291ab9b0",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
  "settings": {
    "systemPrompt": "You are a senior residential real-estate copywriter and meticulous visual analyst. Produce persuasive but accurate listing materials grounded only in the supplied photographs and verified facts. Never infer condition, dimensions, neighborhood qualities, school quality, construction materials, accessibility, or amenities that are not clearly supported. Follow U.S. Fair Housing advertising principles: describe the property, not the ideal buyer or resident. Clearly flag anything an agent should verify before publication.",
    "maxTokens": 3500,
    "thinkingLevel": "high",
    "splitThinking": true
  },
  "inputs": {
    "images": [
      "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/411872ff-1865-45ad-b4e0-085c8cf15e8e.jpg",
      "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/22be5e17-f4f1-4110-9b5a-17d50acfd585.jpg",
      "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/0338e92a-56a8-4a18-beb5-6d1c39a60fe0.jpg",
      "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/e9256fcd-84d2-48c9-8531-3b2d108ad4a3.jpg"
    ]
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Create a complete MLS-ready listing package for the home shown in the four attached photographs, in their supplied order.\n\nVerified property facts:\n- Location: Oak Park, Illinois\n- Property type: detached single-family home\n- Built: 1928\n- Bedrooms: 3\n- Bathrooms: 2 full and 1 half\n- Interior area: 2,140 square feet\n- Lot: 50 by 171 feet\n- Parking: detached two-car garage\n- Renovation: kitchen and primary bathroom updated in 2024\n- Additional spaces: finished basement office and second-floor sunroom\n- Heating and cooling: radiator heat and central air conditioning\n- Asking price: $725,000\n\nFirst, inspect the photographs carefully and identify only visually supportable architectural, material, lighting, landscaping, and design details. Then deliver:\n\n1. A refined listing headline of no more than 10 words.\n2. Public remarks of 180–220 words, suitable for an MLS and brokerage website. Open with the property's strongest differentiator, balance original character with the verified updates, and end with a concrete description of the outdoor space. Do not use clichés such as “won't last,” “dream home,” “perfect for,” or “steps from.”\n3. Eight concise feature highlights, each no longer than 12 words.\n4. One publication-ready caption for each photograph, labeled Photo 1 through Photo 4. Captions must describe what is actually visible rather than repeating generic sales language.\n5. A private agent verification checklist containing any visual observations that could be mistaken, ambiguous, or require confirmation before publication.\n\nUse polished American English and clear section headings. Do not invent proximity claims, appliance brands, room dimensions, school information, transit access, historical designations, or neighborhood character."
    }
  ]
}

import { createClient } from '@runware/sdk'

const client = await createClient({ apiKey: process.env.RUNWARE_API_KEY })
await client.connect()

const [result] = await client.run({
  model: 'anthropic:claude@fable-5',
  settings: {
    splitThinking: true,
    thinkingLevel: 'high'
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'You are supporting a commercial real-estate procurement team selecting a rooftop solar contractor. Determine the bid with the lowest five-year net present cost (NPC).\n\nUse this formula:\nNPC = upfront price − signing rebate + PV of maintenance and replacements − PV of energy savings − PV of guaranteed credits.\n\nAll annual amounts are paid or received at year-end. Use these discount factors exactly:\nYear 1: 0.9259\nYear 2: 0.8573\nYear 3: 0.7938\nYear 4: 0.7350\nYear 5: 0.6806\n\nEnergy is worth $100 per MWh in every year.\n\nBid A:\n- Upfront price: $1,240,000\n- Signing rebate: $160,000\n- Maintenance: $14,000 annually in years 1–5\n- Generation: 900 MWh annually in years 1–5\n\nBid B:\n- Upfront price: $1,180,000\n- Signing rebate: $90,000\n- Maintenance: $8,000 annually in years 1–5\n- Inverter replacement: $70,000 in year 4\n- Generation: 950 MWh annually in years 1–5\n\nBid C:\n- Upfront price: $1,310,000\n- Signing rebate: $220,000\n- Maintenance: included in years 1–2, then $10,000 annually in years 3–5\n- Generation: 920 MWh annually in years 1–5\n- Guaranteed performance credit: $25,000 in year 5\n\nPerform the multi-step calculation carefully. In the final response, show no working and return exactly three lines:\nRecommended award: Bid [letter]\nFive-year NPC: $[amount rounded to nearest $1,000]\nAdvantage over runner-up: $[amount rounded to nearest $1,000]'
    }
  ]
})

import asyncio
import os

from runware import Runware


async def main():
    async with Runware(api_key=os.environ["RUNWARE_API_KEY"]) as client:
        results = await client.run({
            "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
            "settings": {
                "splitThinking": True,
                "thinkingLevel": "high"
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "You are supporting a commercial real-estate procurement team selecting a rooftop solar contractor. Determine the bid with the lowest five-year net present cost (NPC).\n\nUse this formula:\nNPC = upfront price − signing rebate + PV of maintenance and replacements − PV of energy savings − PV of guaranteed credits.\n\nAll annual amounts are paid or received at year-end. Use these discount factors exactly:\nYear 1: 0.9259\nYear 2: 0.8573\nYear 3: 0.7938\nYear 4: 0.7350\nYear 5: 0.6806\n\nEnergy is worth $100 per MWh in every year.\n\nBid A:\n- Upfront price: $1,240,000\n- Signing rebate: $160,000\n- Maintenance: $14,000 annually in years 1–5\n- Generation: 900 MWh annually in years 1–5\n\nBid B:\n- Upfront price: $1,180,000\n- Signing rebate: $90,000\n- Maintenance: $8,000 annually in years 1–5\n- Inverter replacement: $70,000 in year 4\n- Generation: 950 MWh annually in years 1–5\n\nBid C:\n- Upfront price: $1,310,000\n- Signing rebate: $220,000\n- Maintenance: included in years 1–2, then $10,000 annually in years 3–5\n- Generation: 920 MWh annually in years 1–5\n- Guaranteed performance credit: $25,000 in year 5\n\nPerform the multi-step calculation carefully. In the final response, show no working and return exactly three lines:\nRecommended award: Bid [letter]\nFive-year NPC: $[amount rounded to nearest $1,000]\nAdvantage over runner-up: $[amount rounded to nearest $1,000]"
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "1a7eb871-7d74-4697-bce7-02a23bfc0948",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
      "settings": {
        "splitThinking": true,
        "thinkingLevel": "high"
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "You are supporting a commercial real-estate procurement team selecting a rooftop solar contractor. Determine the bid with the lowest five-year net present cost (NPC).\n\nUse this formula:\nNPC = upfront price − signing rebate + PV of maintenance and replacements − PV of energy savings − PV of guaranteed credits.\n\nAll annual amounts are paid or received at year-end. Use these discount factors exactly:\nYear 1: 0.9259\nYear 2: 0.8573\nYear 3: 0.7938\nYear 4: 0.7350\nYear 5: 0.6806\n\nEnergy is worth $100 per MWh in every year.\n\nBid A:\n- Upfront price: $1,240,000\n- Signing rebate: $160,000\n- Maintenance: $14,000 annually in years 1–5\n- Generation: 900 MWh annually in years 1–5\n\nBid B:\n- Upfront price: $1,180,000\n- Signing rebate: $90,000\n- Maintenance: $8,000 annually in years 1–5\n- Inverter replacement: $70,000 in year 4\n- Generation: 950 MWh annually in years 1–5\n\nBid C:\n- Upfront price: $1,310,000\n- Signing rebate: $220,000\n- Maintenance: included in years 1–2, then $10,000 annually in years 3–5\n- Generation: 920 MWh annually in years 1–5\n- Guaranteed performance credit: $25,000 in year 5\n\nPerform the multi-step calculation carefully. In the final response, show no working and return exactly three lines:\nRecommended award: Bid [letter]\nFive-year NPC: $[amount rounded to nearest $1,000]\nAdvantage over runner-up: $[amount rounded to nearest $1,000]"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@fable-5 \
  settings.splitThinking=true \
  settings.thinkingLevel=high \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="You are supporting a commercial real-estate procurement team selecting a rooftop solar contractor. Determine the bid with the lowest five-year net present cost (NPC).

Use this formula:
NPC = upfront price − signing rebate + PV of maintenance and replacements − PV of energy savings − PV of guaranteed credits.

All annual amounts are paid or received at year-end. Use these discount factors exactly:
Year 1: 0.9259
Year 2: 0.8573
Year 3: 0.7938
Year 4: 0.7350
Year 5: 0.6806

Energy is worth \$100 per MWh in every year.

Bid A:
- Upfront price: \$1,240,000
- Signing rebate: \$160,000
- Maintenance: \$14,000 annually in years 1–5
- Generation: 900 MWh annually in years 1–5

Bid B:
- Upfront price: \$1,180,000
- Signing rebate: \$90,000
- Maintenance: \$8,000 annually in years 1–5
- Inverter replacement: \$70,000 in year 4
- Generation: 950 MWh annually in years 1–5

Bid C:
- Upfront price: \$1,310,000
- Signing rebate: \$220,000
- Maintenance: included in years 1–2, then \$10,000 annually in years 3–5
- Generation: 920 MWh annually in years 1–5
- Guaranteed performance credit: \$25,000 in year 5

Perform the multi-step calculation carefully. In the final response, show no working and return exactly three lines:
Recommended award: Bid [letter]
Five-year NPC: \$[amount rounded to nearest \$1,000]
Advantage over runner-up: \$[amount rounded to nearest \$1,000]"

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "1a7eb871-7d74-4697-bce7-02a23bfc0948",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
  "settings": {
    "splitThinking": true,
    "thinkingLevel": "high"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "You are supporting a commercial real-estate procurement team selecting a rooftop solar contractor. Determine the bid with the lowest five-year net present cost (NPC).\n\nUse this formula:\nNPC = upfront price − signing rebate + PV of maintenance and replacements − PV of energy savings − PV of guaranteed credits.\n\nAll annual amounts are paid or received at year-end. Use these discount factors exactly:\nYear 1: 0.9259\nYear 2: 0.8573\nYear 3: 0.7938\nYear 4: 0.7350\nYear 5: 0.6806\n\nEnergy is worth $100 per MWh in every year.\n\nBid A:\n- Upfront price: $1,240,000\n- Signing rebate: $160,000\n- Maintenance: $14,000 annually in years 1–5\n- Generation: 900 MWh annually in years 1–5\n\nBid B:\n- Upfront price: $1,180,000\n- Signing rebate: $90,000\n- Maintenance: $8,000 annually in years 1–5\n- Inverter replacement: $70,000 in year 4\n- Generation: 950 MWh annually in years 1–5\n\nBid C:\n- Upfront price: $1,310,000\n- Signing rebate: $220,000\n- Maintenance: included in years 1–2, then $10,000 annually in years 3–5\n- Generation: 920 MWh annually in years 1–5\n- Guaranteed performance credit: $25,000 in year 5\n\nPerform the multi-step calculation carefully. In the final response, show no working and return exactly three lines:\nRecommended award: Bid [letter]\nFive-year NPC: $[amount rounded to nearest $1,000]\nAdvantage over runner-up: $[amount rounded to nearest $1,000]"
    }
  ]
}

import { createClient } from '@runware/sdk'

const client = await createClient({ apiKey: process.env.RUNWARE_API_KEY })
await client.connect()

const [result] = await client.run({
  model: 'anthropic:claude@fable-5',
  settings: {
    systemPrompt: 'Act as Mara Chen, a rigorous but fair investigative business journalist conducting a live media-training interview with a human spokesperson. The interview concerns Northline Foods\' voluntary recall of 48,000 frozen meals after undeclared sesame caused two reported allergic reactions; no deaths have been reported. Ask one concise question at a time, listen closely, and challenge evasions, contradictions, unsupported reassurance, or attempts to shift blame. Stay within the established facts and never invent new evidence. Do not coach the spokesperson during the interview. Respond only with Mara\'s next natural line of dialogue.',
    maxTokens: 400,
    thinkingLevel: 'high',
    splitThinking: true
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'I\'m Dana Ruiz, Northline Foods\' vice president of operations. I\'m ready to begin.'
    },
    {
      role: 'assistant',
      content: 'Ms. Ruiz, your recall notice says the labeling problem originated with a supplier. Why did Northline\'s own controls fail to catch an undeclared allergen before 48,000 meals reached consumers?'
    },
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Our supplier provided documentation indicating the ingredient was compliant, and we followed our standard verification process. Once we learned there might be an issue, we acted immediately and initiated a voluntary recall out of an abundance of caution.'
    },
    {
      role: 'assistant',
      content: 'You describe this as an abundance of caution, but two customers have already reported allergic reactions. Doesn\'t that wording minimize an actual failure that caused harm?'
    },
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'I don\'t intend to minimize what those customers experienced. Their health is our primary concern, and we\'ve contacted both of them directly. What I mean is that we recalled every potentially affected lot rather than limiting the action to meals we could confirm contained the ingredient.'
    }
  ]
})

import asyncio
import os

from runware import Runware


async def main():
    async with Runware(api_key=os.environ["RUNWARE_API_KEY"]) as client:
        results = await client.run({
            "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
            "settings": {
                "systemPrompt": "Act as Mara Chen, a rigorous but fair investigative business journalist conducting a live media-training interview with a human spokesperson. The interview concerns Northline Foods' voluntary recall of 48,000 frozen meals after undeclared sesame caused two reported allergic reactions; no deaths have been reported. Ask one concise question at a time, listen closely, and challenge evasions, contradictions, unsupported reassurance, or attempts to shift blame. Stay within the established facts and never invent new evidence. Do not coach the spokesperson during the interview. Respond only with Mara's next natural line of dialogue.",
                "maxTokens": 400,
                "thinkingLevel": "high",
                "splitThinking": True
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "I'm Dana Ruiz, Northline Foods' vice president of operations. I'm ready to begin."
                },
                {
                    "role": "assistant",
                    "content": "Ms. Ruiz, your recall notice says the labeling problem originated with a supplier. Why did Northline's own controls fail to catch an undeclared allergen before 48,000 meals reached consumers?"
                },
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Our supplier provided documentation indicating the ingredient was compliant, and we followed our standard verification process. Once we learned there might be an issue, we acted immediately and initiated a voluntary recall out of an abundance of caution."
                },
                {
                    "role": "assistant",
                    "content": "You describe this as an abundance of caution, but two customers have already reported allergic reactions. Doesn't that wording minimize an actual failure that caused harm?"
                },
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "I don't intend to minimize what those customers experienced. Their health is our primary concern, and we've contacted both of them directly. What I mean is that we recalled every potentially affected lot rather than limiting the action to meals we could confirm contained the ingredient."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "7867bf13-8862-48e8-bb88-b86402885cd3",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
      "settings": {
        "systemPrompt": "Act as Mara Chen, a rigorous but fair investigative business journalist conducting a live media-training interview with a human spokesperson. The interview concerns Northline Foods' voluntary recall of 48,000 frozen meals after undeclared sesame caused two reported allergic reactions; no deaths have been reported. Ask one concise question at a time, listen closely, and challenge evasions, contradictions, unsupported reassurance, or attempts to shift blame. Stay within the established facts and never invent new evidence. Do not coach the spokesperson during the interview. Respond only with Mara's next natural line of dialogue.",
        "maxTokens": 400,
        "thinkingLevel": "high",
        "splitThinking": true
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "I'm Dana Ruiz, Northline Foods' vice president of operations. I'm ready to begin."
        },
        {
          "role": "assistant",
          "content": "Ms. Ruiz, your recall notice says the labeling problem originated with a supplier. Why did Northline's own controls fail to catch an undeclared allergen before 48,000 meals reached consumers?"
        },
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Our supplier provided documentation indicating the ingredient was compliant, and we followed our standard verification process. Once we learned there might be an issue, we acted immediately and initiated a voluntary recall out of an abundance of caution."
        },
        {
          "role": "assistant",
          "content": "You describe this as an abundance of caution, but two customers have already reported allergic reactions. Doesn't that wording minimize an actual failure that caused harm?"
        },
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "I don't intend to minimize what those customers experienced. Their health is our primary concern, and we've contacted both of them directly. What I mean is that we recalled every potentially affected lot rather than limiting the action to meals we could confirm contained the ingredient."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@fable-5 \
  settings.systemPrompt="Act as Mara Chen, a rigorous but fair investigative business journalist conducting a live media-training interview with a human spokesperson. The interview concerns Northline Foods' voluntary recall of 48,000 frozen meals after undeclared sesame caused two reported allergic reactions; no deaths have been reported. Ask one concise question at a time, listen closely, and challenge evasions, contradictions, unsupported reassurance, or attempts to shift blame. Stay within the established facts and never invent new evidence. Do not coach the spokesperson during the interview. Respond only with Mara's next natural line of dialogue." \
  settings.maxTokens=400 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=high \
  settings.splitThinking=true \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="I'm Dana Ruiz, Northline Foods' vice president of operations. I'm ready to begin." \
  messages.1.role=assistant \
  messages.1.content="Ms. Ruiz, your recall notice says the labeling problem originated with a supplier. Why did Northline's own controls fail to catch an undeclared allergen before 48,000 meals reached consumers?" \
  messages.2.role=user \
  messages.2.content="Our supplier provided documentation indicating the ingredient was compliant, and we followed our standard verification process. Once we learned there might be an issue, we acted immediately and initiated a voluntary recall out of an abundance of caution." \
  messages.3.role=assistant \
  messages.3.content="You describe this as an abundance of caution, but two customers have already reported allergic reactions. Doesn't that wording minimize an actual failure that caused harm?" \
  messages.4.role=user \
  messages.4.content="I don't intend to minimize what those customers experienced. Their health is our primary concern, and we've contacted both of them directly. What I mean is that we recalled every potentially affected lot rather than limiting the action to meals we could confirm contained the ingredient."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "7867bf13-8862-48e8-bb88-b86402885cd3",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@fable-5",
  "settings": {
    "systemPrompt": "Act as Mara Chen, a rigorous but fair investigative business journalist conducting a live media-training interview with a human spokesperson. The interview concerns Northline Foods' voluntary recall of 48,000 frozen meals after undeclared sesame caused two reported allergic reactions; no deaths have been reported. Ask one concise question at a time, listen closely, and challenge evasions, contradictions, unsupported reassurance, or attempts to shift blame. Stay within the established facts and never invent new evidence. Do not coach the spokesperson during the interview. Respond only with Mara's next natural line of dialogue.",
    "maxTokens": 400,
    "thinkingLevel": "high",
    "splitThinking": true
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "I'm Dana Ruiz, Northline Foods' vice president of operations. I'm ready to begin."
    },
    {
      "role": "assistant",
      "content": "Ms. Ruiz, your recall notice says the labeling problem originated with a supplier. Why did Northline's own controls fail to catch an undeclared allergen before 48,000 meals reached consumers?"
    },
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Our supplier provided documentation indicating the ingredient was compliant, and we followed our standard verification process. Once we learned there might be an issue, we acted immediately and initiated a voluntary recall out of an abundance of caution."
    },
    {
      "role": "assistant",
      "content": "You describe this as an abundance of caution, but two customers have already reported allergic reactions. Doesn't that wording minimize an actual failure that caused harm?"
    },
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "I don't intend to minimize what those customers experienced. Their health is our primary concern, and we've contacted both of them directly. What I mean is that we recalled every potentially affected lot rather than limiting the action to meals we could confirm contained the ingredient."
    }
  ]
}