Claude Opus 4.7

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@opus-4.7',
  settings: {
    systemPrompt: 'You are a meticulous forensic analyst and executive communications specialist. Analyze dense business materials carefully, separate facts from assumptions, note contradictions explicitly, and present conclusions in a structured, decision-ready format. Prioritize accuracy, traceability, and actionable next steps.',
    maxTokens: 8192,
    thinkingLevel: 'high',
    cache: {
      scope: 'system+history',
      ttl: '1h'
    }
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'You are reviewing a fictional internal audit case for a regional museum network called North Gate Heritage Trust. Read the case file below and produce a rigorous report.\n\nCASE FILE\n\nBackground:\nNorth Gate Heritage Trust operates 6 small museums, 2 archive facilities, and a traveling education program. During the Q2 close, finance flagged a discrepancy of $418,270 between restricted donor funds recorded in the grant ledger and cash movement reflected in bank subaccounts. The CFO says the issue is likely timing-related. The Head of Programs says at least some grants were intentionally reclassified to keep school outreach operating during a temporary funding gap. The board audit chair wants a concise explanation before the next meeting.\n\nEntities and teams:\n- Central Finance Office (CFO office, controller, AP team)\n- Programs Division (education, collections care, exhibits)\n- Development Office (major gifts, grant reporting)\n- Operations (procurement, facilities, fleet)\n\nKey facts from interviews:\n1. Controller interview:\n   - Q2 included migration from LedgerSuite v4 to LedgerSuite v5.\n   - Historical grant tags were bulk-mapped by external consultants.\n   - Three journal batches from April 3 were re-uploaded after an import failure.\n   - Controller believes duplicate entries may exist but says they would explain only about $90,000.\n\n2. Head of Programs interview:\n   - Education buses required urgent repairs in April costing about $160,000 total.\n   - A state outreach grant could not legally cover fleet repairs.\n   - Programs staff were told to "bridge temporarily" from another restricted line tied to youth engagement expansion.\n   - She says she objected verbally but no written escalation was made.\n\n3. Development Director interview:\n   - Two private foundation grants totaling $500,000 were received in March.\n   - Donor letters required funds to support new curriculum design and bilingual teaching materials.\n   - First narrative report was due June 30 but was submitted July 12.\n   - One foundation officer informally indicated schedule flexibility, but no written amendment exists.\n\n4. AP manager interview:\n   - Vendor Horizon Fleet Services sent four invoices: $42,800, $38,600, $44,250, and $33,900.\n   - Two invoices were coded to "mobile outreach readiness," one to "transport safety compliance," and one to "general maintenance clearing."\n   - AP followed coding supplied by Operations.\n\n5. Operations director interview:\n   - He denies directing any intentional miscoding.\n   - He says cost centers were selected by an analyst using an old cheat sheet during the software cutover.\n   - He admits he approved all four fleet invoices quickly because buses were out of service.\n\nSelected ledger extracts:\n- Grant 4471 Youth Engagement Expansion (restricted):\n  Opening restricted balance Apr 1: $612,000\n  Apr 8 journal debit: $120,000 labeled "temporary deployment pending reclass"\n  Apr 29 journal debit: $45,000 labeled "field operations stabilization"\n  May 14 journal credit: $30,000 labeled "partial correction"\n  Closing restricted balance Jun 30: $477,000\n\n- Grant 4522 State Outreach Access (restricted):\n  Opening restricted balance Apr 1: $388,000\n  Apr 11 expense allocation: $76,000 coded "mobile outreach readiness"\n  Apr 18 expense allocation: $38,600 coded "transport safety compliance"\n  May 2 reversing entry: -$38,600\n  Closing restricted balance Jun 30: $311,400\n\n- Grant 4603 Foundation Curriculum Renewal (restricted):\n  Opening restricted balance Apr 1: $500,000\n  Apr 3 journal debit: $167,340 labeled "curriculum rollout support"\n  Apr 3 journal debit: $167,340 labeled "curriculum rollout support"\n  Apr 4 journal credit: $83,670 labeled "import correction phase 1"\n  Jun 30 closing restricted balance: $249,990\n\n- Unrestricted Operating Cash:\n  Apr fleet repairs and related emergency operating spend: $211,550\n  May reimbursement from restricted segments: $83,670\n  June manual adjustment referencing "stabilization sweep": $54,000\n\nBank subaccount notes:\n- Separate bank subaccounts exist for 5 major restricted funding pools, but not all accounting tags map one-to-one.\n- Treasury analyst notes that during April, two transfers were posted with memo lines only: "program continuity" ($120,000) and "ops bridge" ($45,000).\n- A June transfer of $54,000 moved from a pooled donations account into operating cash, approved by CFO and controller.\n\nEmail excerpts:\nA. From controller to CFO, Apr 5:\n   "Migration vendor says duplicate ingestion affected one source file. We can reverse after validation. Estimate under 100k impact unless tags crossed funds."\n\nB. From Programs finance lead to Head of Programs, Apr 9:\n   "Used expansion line as discussed so buses can return next week. Finance said we can clean it up after the grant report draft."\n\nC. From Development associate to Development Director, Jun 27:\n   "Foundation narrative still not ready. If expenditures are sitting in the curriculum line, numbers may raise questions because materials work hasn\'t started at planned pace."\n\nD. From CFO to controller, Jun 29:\n   "Need a cleaner quarter-end view before audit committee packet. Move what is clearly temporary, leave anything arguable until July support is assembled."\n\nYour tasks:\n1. Build a chronological timeline of the most relevant events.\n2. Explain the most plausible composition of the $418,270 discrepancy, using explicit arithmetic where possible.\n3. Distinguish between likely software migration error, temporary internal borrowing, and potentially improper restricted-fund use.\n4. Assess legal/compliance/reputational risk in a prioritized table.\n5. Draft a board-ready summary in 180-220 words.\n6. List the 7 most important follow-up questions or documents needed.\n\nFormatting requirements:\n- Use headings.\n- Include one table for risk assessment.\n- Include one bullet list of assumptions.\n- Be explicit about uncertainty.\n- Do not invent facts beyond reasonable inference.'
    }
  ]
})

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@opus-4.7",
            "settings": {
                "systemPrompt": "You are a meticulous forensic analyst and executive communications specialist. Analyze dense business materials carefully, separate facts from assumptions, note contradictions explicitly, and present conclusions in a structured, decision-ready format. Prioritize accuracy, traceability, and actionable next steps.",
                "maxTokens": 8192,
                "thinkingLevel": "high",
                "cache": {
                    "scope": "system+history",
                    "ttl": "1h"
                }
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "You are reviewing a fictional internal audit case for a regional museum network called North Gate Heritage Trust. Read the case file below and produce a rigorous report.\n\nCASE FILE\n\nBackground:\nNorth Gate Heritage Trust operates 6 small museums, 2 archive facilities, and a traveling education program. During the Q2 close, finance flagged a discrepancy of $418,270 between restricted donor funds recorded in the grant ledger and cash movement reflected in bank subaccounts. The CFO says the issue is likely timing-related. The Head of Programs says at least some grants were intentionally reclassified to keep school outreach operating during a temporary funding gap. The board audit chair wants a concise explanation before the next meeting.\n\nEntities and teams:\n- Central Finance Office (CFO office, controller, AP team)\n- Programs Division (education, collections care, exhibits)\n- Development Office (major gifts, grant reporting)\n- Operations (procurement, facilities, fleet)\n\nKey facts from interviews:\n1. Controller interview:\n   - Q2 included migration from LedgerSuite v4 to LedgerSuite v5.\n   - Historical grant tags were bulk-mapped by external consultants.\n   - Three journal batches from April 3 were re-uploaded after an import failure.\n   - Controller believes duplicate entries may exist but says they would explain only about $90,000.\n\n2. Head of Programs interview:\n   - Education buses required urgent repairs in April costing about $160,000 total.\n   - A state outreach grant could not legally cover fleet repairs.\n   - Programs staff were told to \"bridge temporarily\" from another restricted line tied to youth engagement expansion.\n   - She says she objected verbally but no written escalation was made.\n\n3. Development Director interview:\n   - Two private foundation grants totaling $500,000 were received in March.\n   - Donor letters required funds to support new curriculum design and bilingual teaching materials.\n   - First narrative report was due June 30 but was submitted July 12.\n   - One foundation officer informally indicated schedule flexibility, but no written amendment exists.\n\n4. AP manager interview:\n   - Vendor Horizon Fleet Services sent four invoices: $42,800, $38,600, $44,250, and $33,900.\n   - Two invoices were coded to \"mobile outreach readiness,\" one to \"transport safety compliance,\" and one to \"general maintenance clearing.\"\n   - AP followed coding supplied by Operations.\n\n5. Operations director interview:\n   - He denies directing any intentional miscoding.\n   - He says cost centers were selected by an analyst using an old cheat sheet during the software cutover.\n   - He admits he approved all four fleet invoices quickly because buses were out of service.\n\nSelected ledger extracts:\n- Grant 4471 Youth Engagement Expansion (restricted):\n  Opening restricted balance Apr 1: $612,000\n  Apr 8 journal debit: $120,000 labeled \"temporary deployment pending reclass\"\n  Apr 29 journal debit: $45,000 labeled \"field operations stabilization\"\n  May 14 journal credit: $30,000 labeled \"partial correction\"\n  Closing restricted balance Jun 30: $477,000\n\n- Grant 4522 State Outreach Access (restricted):\n  Opening restricted balance Apr 1: $388,000\n  Apr 11 expense allocation: $76,000 coded \"mobile outreach readiness\"\n  Apr 18 expense allocation: $38,600 coded \"transport safety compliance\"\n  May 2 reversing entry: -$38,600\n  Closing restricted balance Jun 30: $311,400\n\n- Grant 4603 Foundation Curriculum Renewal (restricted):\n  Opening restricted balance Apr 1: $500,000\n  Apr 3 journal debit: $167,340 labeled \"curriculum rollout support\"\n  Apr 3 journal debit: $167,340 labeled \"curriculum rollout support\"\n  Apr 4 journal credit: $83,670 labeled \"import correction phase 1\"\n  Jun 30 closing restricted balance: $249,990\n\n- Unrestricted Operating Cash:\n  Apr fleet repairs and related emergency operating spend: $211,550\n  May reimbursement from restricted segments: $83,670\n  June manual adjustment referencing \"stabilization sweep\": $54,000\n\nBank subaccount notes:\n- Separate bank subaccounts exist for 5 major restricted funding pools, but not all accounting tags map one-to-one.\n- Treasury analyst notes that during April, two transfers were posted with memo lines only: \"program continuity\" ($120,000) and \"ops bridge\" ($45,000).\n- A June transfer of $54,000 moved from a pooled donations account into operating cash, approved by CFO and controller.\n\nEmail excerpts:\nA. From controller to CFO, Apr 5:\n   \"Migration vendor says duplicate ingestion affected one source file. We can reverse after validation. Estimate under 100k impact unless tags crossed funds.\"\n\nB. From Programs finance lead to Head of Programs, Apr 9:\n   \"Used expansion line as discussed so buses can return next week. Finance said we can clean it up after the grant report draft.\"\n\nC. From Development associate to Development Director, Jun 27:\n   \"Foundation narrative still not ready. If expenditures are sitting in the curriculum line, numbers may raise questions because materials work hasn't started at planned pace.\"\n\nD. From CFO to controller, Jun 29:\n   \"Need a cleaner quarter-end view before audit committee packet. Move what is clearly temporary, leave anything arguable until July support is assembled.\"\n\nYour tasks:\n1. Build a chronological timeline of the most relevant events.\n2. Explain the most plausible composition of the $418,270 discrepancy, using explicit arithmetic where possible.\n3. Distinguish between likely software migration error, temporary internal borrowing, and potentially improper restricted-fund use.\n4. Assess legal/compliance/reputational risk in a prioritized table.\n5. Draft a board-ready summary in 180-220 words.\n6. List the 7 most important follow-up questions or documents needed.\n\nFormatting requirements:\n- Use headings.\n- Include one table for risk assessment.\n- Include one bullet list of assumptions.\n- Be explicit about uncertainty.\n- Do not invent facts beyond reasonable inference."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "9251911a-02a0-4e32-9cf8-b8ff5ad5081d",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.7",
      "settings": {
        "systemPrompt": "You are a meticulous forensic analyst and executive communications specialist. Analyze dense business materials carefully, separate facts from assumptions, note contradictions explicitly, and present conclusions in a structured, decision-ready format. Prioritize accuracy, traceability, and actionable next steps.",
        "maxTokens": 8192,
        "thinkingLevel": "high",
        "cache": {
          "scope": "system+history",
          "ttl": "1h"
        }
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "You are reviewing a fictional internal audit case for a regional museum network called North Gate Heritage Trust. Read the case file below and produce a rigorous report.\n\nCASE FILE\n\nBackground:\nNorth Gate Heritage Trust operates 6 small museums, 2 archive facilities, and a traveling education program. During the Q2 close, finance flagged a discrepancy of $418,270 between restricted donor funds recorded in the grant ledger and cash movement reflected in bank subaccounts. The CFO says the issue is likely timing-related. The Head of Programs says at least some grants were intentionally reclassified to keep school outreach operating during a temporary funding gap. The board audit chair wants a concise explanation before the next meeting.\n\nEntities and teams:\n- Central Finance Office (CFO office, controller, AP team)\n- Programs Division (education, collections care, exhibits)\n- Development Office (major gifts, grant reporting)\n- Operations (procurement, facilities, fleet)\n\nKey facts from interviews:\n1. Controller interview:\n   - Q2 included migration from LedgerSuite v4 to LedgerSuite v5.\n   - Historical grant tags were bulk-mapped by external consultants.\n   - Three journal batches from April 3 were re-uploaded after an import failure.\n   - Controller believes duplicate entries may exist but says they would explain only about $90,000.\n\n2. Head of Programs interview:\n   - Education buses required urgent repairs in April costing about $160,000 total.\n   - A state outreach grant could not legally cover fleet repairs.\n   - Programs staff were told to \"bridge temporarily\" from another restricted line tied to youth engagement expansion.\n   - She says she objected verbally but no written escalation was made.\n\n3. Development Director interview:\n   - Two private foundation grants totaling $500,000 were received in March.\n   - Donor letters required funds to support new curriculum design and bilingual teaching materials.\n   - First narrative report was due June 30 but was submitted July 12.\n   - One foundation officer informally indicated schedule flexibility, but no written amendment exists.\n\n4. AP manager interview:\n   - Vendor Horizon Fleet Services sent four invoices: $42,800, $38,600, $44,250, and $33,900.\n   - Two invoices were coded to \"mobile outreach readiness,\" one to \"transport safety compliance,\" and one to \"general maintenance clearing.\"\n   - AP followed coding supplied by Operations.\n\n5. Operations director interview:\n   - He denies directing any intentional miscoding.\n   - He says cost centers were selected by an analyst using an old cheat sheet during the software cutover.\n   - He admits he approved all four fleet invoices quickly because buses were out of service.\n\nSelected ledger extracts:\n- Grant 4471 Youth Engagement Expansion (restricted):\n  Opening restricted balance Apr 1: $612,000\n  Apr 8 journal debit: $120,000 labeled \"temporary deployment pending reclass\"\n  Apr 29 journal debit: $45,000 labeled \"field operations stabilization\"\n  May 14 journal credit: $30,000 labeled \"partial correction\"\n  Closing restricted balance Jun 30: $477,000\n\n- Grant 4522 State Outreach Access (restricted):\n  Opening restricted balance Apr 1: $388,000\n  Apr 11 expense allocation: $76,000 coded \"mobile outreach readiness\"\n  Apr 18 expense allocation: $38,600 coded \"transport safety compliance\"\n  May 2 reversing entry: -$38,600\n  Closing restricted balance Jun 30: $311,400\n\n- Grant 4603 Foundation Curriculum Renewal (restricted):\n  Opening restricted balance Apr 1: $500,000\n  Apr 3 journal debit: $167,340 labeled \"curriculum rollout support\"\n  Apr 3 journal debit: $167,340 labeled \"curriculum rollout support\"\n  Apr 4 journal credit: $83,670 labeled \"import correction phase 1\"\n  Jun 30 closing restricted balance: $249,990\n\n- Unrestricted Operating Cash:\n  Apr fleet repairs and related emergency operating spend: $211,550\n  May reimbursement from restricted segments: $83,670\n  June manual adjustment referencing \"stabilization sweep\": $54,000\n\nBank subaccount notes:\n- Separate bank subaccounts exist for 5 major restricted funding pools, but not all accounting tags map one-to-one.\n- Treasury analyst notes that during April, two transfers were posted with memo lines only: \"program continuity\" ($120,000) and \"ops bridge\" ($45,000).\n- A June transfer of $54,000 moved from a pooled donations account into operating cash, approved by CFO and controller.\n\nEmail excerpts:\nA. From controller to CFO, Apr 5:\n   \"Migration vendor says duplicate ingestion affected one source file. We can reverse after validation. Estimate under 100k impact unless tags crossed funds.\"\n\nB. From Programs finance lead to Head of Programs, Apr 9:\n   \"Used expansion line as discussed so buses can return next week. Finance said we can clean it up after the grant report draft.\"\n\nC. From Development associate to Development Director, Jun 27:\n   \"Foundation narrative still not ready. If expenditures are sitting in the curriculum line, numbers may raise questions because materials work hasn't started at planned pace.\"\n\nD. From CFO to controller, Jun 29:\n   \"Need a cleaner quarter-end view before audit committee packet. Move what is clearly temporary, leave anything arguable until July support is assembled.\"\n\nYour tasks:\n1. Build a chronological timeline of the most relevant events.\n2. Explain the most plausible composition of the $418,270 discrepancy, using explicit arithmetic where possible.\n3. Distinguish between likely software migration error, temporary internal borrowing, and potentially improper restricted-fund use.\n4. Assess legal/compliance/reputational risk in a prioritized table.\n5. Draft a board-ready summary in 180-220 words.\n6. List the 7 most important follow-up questions or documents needed.\n\nFormatting requirements:\n- Use headings.\n- Include one table for risk assessment.\n- Include one bullet list of assumptions.\n- Be explicit about uncertainty.\n- Do not invent facts beyond reasonable inference."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@opus-4.7 \
  settings.systemPrompt="You are a meticulous forensic analyst and executive communications specialist. Analyze dense business materials carefully, separate facts from assumptions, note contradictions explicitly, and present conclusions in a structured, decision-ready format. Prioritize accuracy, traceability, and actionable next steps." \
  settings.maxTokens=8192 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=high \
  settings.cache.scope=system+history \
  settings.cache.ttl=1h \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="You are reviewing a fictional internal audit case for a regional museum network called North Gate Heritage Trust. Read the case file below and produce a rigorous report.

CASE FILE

Background:
North Gate Heritage Trust operates 6 small museums, 2 archive facilities, and a traveling education program. During the Q2 close, finance flagged a discrepancy of \$418,270 between restricted donor funds recorded in the grant ledger and cash movement reflected in bank subaccounts. The CFO says the issue is likely timing-related. The Head of Programs says at least some grants were intentionally reclassified to keep school outreach operating during a temporary funding gap. The board audit chair wants a concise explanation before the next meeting.

Entities and teams:
- Central Finance Office (CFO office, controller, AP team)
- Programs Division (education, collections care, exhibits)
- Development Office (major gifts, grant reporting)
- Operations (procurement, facilities, fleet)

Key facts from interviews:
1. Controller interview:
   - Q2 included migration from LedgerSuite v4 to LedgerSuite v5.
   - Historical grant tags were bulk-mapped by external consultants.
   - Three journal batches from April 3 were re-uploaded after an import failure.
   - Controller believes duplicate entries may exist but says they would explain only about \$90,000.

2. Head of Programs interview:
   - Education buses required urgent repairs in April costing about \$160,000 total.
   - A state outreach grant could not legally cover fleet repairs.
   - Programs staff were told to \"bridge temporarily\" from another restricted line tied to youth engagement expansion.
   - She says she objected verbally but no written escalation was made.

3. Development Director interview:
   - Two private foundation grants totaling \$500,000 were received in March.
   - Donor letters required funds to support new curriculum design and bilingual teaching materials.
   - First narrative report was due June 30 but was submitted July 12.
   - One foundation officer informally indicated schedule flexibility, but no written amendment exists.

4. AP manager interview:
   - Vendor Horizon Fleet Services sent four invoices: \$42,800, \$38,600, \$44,250, and \$33,900.
   - Two invoices were coded to \"mobile outreach readiness,\" one to \"transport safety compliance,\" and one to \"general maintenance clearing.\"
   - AP followed coding supplied by Operations.

5. Operations director interview:
   - He denies directing any intentional miscoding.
   - He says cost centers were selected by an analyst using an old cheat sheet during the software cutover.
   - He admits he approved all four fleet invoices quickly because buses were out of service.

Selected ledger extracts:
- Grant 4471 Youth Engagement Expansion (restricted):
  Opening restricted balance Apr 1: \$612,000
  Apr 8 journal debit: \$120,000 labeled \"temporary deployment pending reclass\"
  Apr 29 journal debit: \$45,000 labeled \"field operations stabilization\"
  May 14 journal credit: \$30,000 labeled \"partial correction\"
  Closing restricted balance Jun 30: \$477,000

- Grant 4522 State Outreach Access (restricted):
  Opening restricted balance Apr 1: \$388,000
  Apr 11 expense allocation: \$76,000 coded \"mobile outreach readiness\"
  Apr 18 expense allocation: \$38,600 coded \"transport safety compliance\"
  May 2 reversing entry: -\$38,600
  Closing restricted balance Jun 30: \$311,400

- Grant 4603 Foundation Curriculum Renewal (restricted):
  Opening restricted balance Apr 1: \$500,000
  Apr 3 journal debit: \$167,340 labeled \"curriculum rollout support\"
  Apr 3 journal debit: \$167,340 labeled \"curriculum rollout support\"
  Apr 4 journal credit: \$83,670 labeled \"import correction phase 1\"
  Jun 30 closing restricted balance: \$249,990

- Unrestricted Operating Cash:
  Apr fleet repairs and related emergency operating spend: \$211,550
  May reimbursement from restricted segments: \$83,670
  June manual adjustment referencing \"stabilization sweep\": \$54,000

Bank subaccount notes:
- Separate bank subaccounts exist for 5 major restricted funding pools, but not all accounting tags map one-to-one.
- Treasury analyst notes that during April, two transfers were posted with memo lines only: \"program continuity\" (\$120,000) and \"ops bridge\" (\$45,000).
- A June transfer of \$54,000 moved from a pooled donations account into operating cash, approved by CFO and controller.

Email excerpts:
A. From controller to CFO, Apr 5:
   \"Migration vendor says duplicate ingestion affected one source file. We can reverse after validation. Estimate under 100k impact unless tags crossed funds.\"

B. From Programs finance lead to Head of Programs, Apr 9:
   \"Used expansion line as discussed so buses can return next week. Finance said we can clean it up after the grant report draft.\"

C. From Development associate to Development Director, Jun 27:
   \"Foundation narrative still not ready. If expenditures are sitting in the curriculum line, numbers may raise questions because materials work hasn't started at planned pace.\"

D. From CFO to controller, Jun 29:
   \"Need a cleaner quarter-end view before audit committee packet. Move what is clearly temporary, leave anything arguable until July support is assembled.\"

Your tasks:
1. Build a chronological timeline of the most relevant events.
2. Explain the most plausible composition of the \$418,270 discrepancy, using explicit arithmetic where possible.
3. Distinguish between likely software migration error, temporary internal borrowing, and potentially improper restricted-fund use.
4. Assess legal/compliance/reputational risk in a prioritized table.
5. Draft a board-ready summary in 180-220 words.
6. List the 7 most important follow-up questions or documents needed.

Formatting requirements:
- Use headings.
- Include one table for risk assessment.
- Include one bullet list of assumptions.
- Be explicit about uncertainty.
- Do not invent facts beyond reasonable inference."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "9251911a-02a0-4e32-9cf8-b8ff5ad5081d",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.7",
  "settings": {
    "systemPrompt": "You are a meticulous forensic analyst and executive communications specialist. Analyze dense business materials carefully, separate facts from assumptions, note contradictions explicitly, and present conclusions in a structured, decision-ready format. Prioritize accuracy, traceability, and actionable next steps.",
    "maxTokens": 8192,
    "thinkingLevel": "high",
    "cache": {
      "scope": "system+history",
      "ttl": "1h"
    }
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "You are reviewing a fictional internal audit case for a regional museum network called North Gate Heritage Trust. Read the case file below and produce a rigorous report.\n\nCASE FILE\n\nBackground:\nNorth Gate Heritage Trust operates 6 small museums, 2 archive facilities, and a traveling education program. During the Q2 close, finance flagged a discrepancy of $418,270 between restricted donor funds recorded in the grant ledger and cash movement reflected in bank subaccounts. The CFO says the issue is likely timing-related. The Head of Programs says at least some grants were intentionally reclassified to keep school outreach operating during a temporary funding gap. The board audit chair wants a concise explanation before the next meeting.\n\nEntities and teams:\n- Central Finance Office (CFO office, controller, AP team)\n- Programs Division (education, collections care, exhibits)\n- Development Office (major gifts, grant reporting)\n- Operations (procurement, facilities, fleet)\n\nKey facts from interviews:\n1. Controller interview:\n   - Q2 included migration from LedgerSuite v4 to LedgerSuite v5.\n   - Historical grant tags were bulk-mapped by external consultants.\n   - Three journal batches from April 3 were re-uploaded after an import failure.\n   - Controller believes duplicate entries may exist but says they would explain only about $90,000.\n\n2. Head of Programs interview:\n   - Education buses required urgent repairs in April costing about $160,000 total.\n   - A state outreach grant could not legally cover fleet repairs.\n   - Programs staff were told to \"bridge temporarily\" from another restricted line tied to youth engagement expansion.\n   - She says she objected verbally but no written escalation was made.\n\n3. Development Director interview:\n   - Two private foundation grants totaling $500,000 were received in March.\n   - Donor letters required funds to support new curriculum design and bilingual teaching materials.\n   - First narrative report was due June 30 but was submitted July 12.\n   - One foundation officer informally indicated schedule flexibility, but no written amendment exists.\n\n4. AP manager interview:\n   - Vendor Horizon Fleet Services sent four invoices: $42,800, $38,600, $44,250, and $33,900.\n   - Two invoices were coded to \"mobile outreach readiness,\" one to \"transport safety compliance,\" and one to \"general maintenance clearing.\"\n   - AP followed coding supplied by Operations.\n\n5. Operations director interview:\n   - He denies directing any intentional miscoding.\n   - He says cost centers were selected by an analyst using an old cheat sheet during the software cutover.\n   - He admits he approved all four fleet invoices quickly because buses were out of service.\n\nSelected ledger extracts:\n- Grant 4471 Youth Engagement Expansion (restricted):\n  Opening restricted balance Apr 1: $612,000\n  Apr 8 journal debit: $120,000 labeled \"temporary deployment pending reclass\"\n  Apr 29 journal debit: $45,000 labeled \"field operations stabilization\"\n  May 14 journal credit: $30,000 labeled \"partial correction\"\n  Closing restricted balance Jun 30: $477,000\n\n- Grant 4522 State Outreach Access (restricted):\n  Opening restricted balance Apr 1: $388,000\n  Apr 11 expense allocation: $76,000 coded \"mobile outreach readiness\"\n  Apr 18 expense allocation: $38,600 coded \"transport safety compliance\"\n  May 2 reversing entry: -$38,600\n  Closing restricted balance Jun 30: $311,400\n\n- Grant 4603 Foundation Curriculum Renewal (restricted):\n  Opening restricted balance Apr 1: $500,000\n  Apr 3 journal debit: $167,340 labeled \"curriculum rollout support\"\n  Apr 3 journal debit: $167,340 labeled \"curriculum rollout support\"\n  Apr 4 journal credit: $83,670 labeled \"import correction phase 1\"\n  Jun 30 closing restricted balance: $249,990\n\n- Unrestricted Operating Cash:\n  Apr fleet repairs and related emergency operating spend: $211,550\n  May reimbursement from restricted segments: $83,670\n  June manual adjustment referencing \"stabilization sweep\": $54,000\n\nBank subaccount notes:\n- Separate bank subaccounts exist for 5 major restricted funding pools, but not all accounting tags map one-to-one.\n- Treasury analyst notes that during April, two transfers were posted with memo lines only: \"program continuity\" ($120,000) and \"ops bridge\" ($45,000).\n- A June transfer of $54,000 moved from a pooled donations account into operating cash, approved by CFO and controller.\n\nEmail excerpts:\nA. From controller to CFO, Apr 5:\n   \"Migration vendor says duplicate ingestion affected one source file. We can reverse after validation. Estimate under 100k impact unless tags crossed funds.\"\n\nB. From Programs finance lead to Head of Programs, Apr 9:\n   \"Used expansion line as discussed so buses can return next week. Finance said we can clean it up after the grant report draft.\"\n\nC. From Development associate to Development Director, Jun 27:\n   \"Foundation narrative still not ready. If expenditures are sitting in the curriculum line, numbers may raise questions because materials work hasn't started at planned pace.\"\n\nD. From CFO to controller, Jun 29:\n   \"Need a cleaner quarter-end view before audit committee packet. Move what is clearly temporary, leave anything arguable until July support is assembled.\"\n\nYour tasks:\n1. Build a chronological timeline of the most relevant events.\n2. Explain the most plausible composition of the $418,270 discrepancy, using explicit arithmetic where possible.\n3. Distinguish between likely software migration error, temporary internal borrowing, and potentially improper restricted-fund use.\n4. Assess legal/compliance/reputational risk in a prioritized table.\n5. Draft a board-ready summary in 180-220 words.\n6. List the 7 most important follow-up questions or documents needed.\n\nFormatting requirements:\n- Use headings.\n- Include one table for risk assessment.\n- Include one bullet list of assumptions.\n- Be explicit about uncertainty.\n- Do not invent facts beyond reasonable inference."
    }
  ]
}

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@opus-4.7',
  settings: {
    thinkingLevel: 'high'
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Act as the principal identity architect for a regulated insurance group. Produce the execution plan that the CIO, CISO, service owners, and migration team will use to consolidate two Microsoft Entra ID tenants after an acquisition.\n\nScenario\n- Northstar Mutual has 11,800 employees in tenant N and acquired Harbor Specialty, which has 4,600 employees and 900 contractors in tenant H.\n- Tenant N will be the destination tenant. The program must finish within 28 weeks.\n- Both companies use Microsoft 365, Exchange Online, Teams, SharePoint, Intune, and Entra ID. Tenant H also has 73 enterprise applications using SAML or OIDC, 18 applications using SCIM provisioning, 34 legacy applications using LDAP through on-premises Active Directory, and 12 Azure subscriptions.\n- Tenant N uses cloud-native authentication with passwordless sign-in for 68% of employees. Tenant H synchronizes identities from two on-premises Active Directory forests and relies heavily on SMS MFA.\n- Harbor employees must retain their existing email addresses as aliases. Customer-facing staff cannot lose access to email, Teams, the claims platform, or telephony for more than 15 minutes during business hours.\n- Seven applications identify users by immutable object ID rather than email address. Three of those applications have no vendor-supported bulk remapping function.\n- There are approximately 1,200 guest-account collisions, 640 duplicate display names, 87 duplicate proxy addresses, and 46 people who already hold identities in both tenants.\n- Privileged roles are currently inconsistent. Tenant H has 39 Global Administrators, including 11 standing assignments and 6 shared emergency accounts. Tenant N uses Privileged Identity Management and maintains two monitored break-glass accounts.\n- Devices include 7,900 Windows laptops, 2,300 macOS devices, 3,100 managed mobile devices, 480 shared clinical-style kiosks used by claims adjusters, and 760 personally owned contractor devices.\n- The company operates in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany. The plan must respect least privilege, auditable approvals, data-residency obligations, legal holds, records-retention policies, and separation of duties. Do not provide legal conclusions; identify matters requiring counsel or privacy-officer approval.\n- Quarter-end runs from weeks 9 through 11, and no production identity changes are permitted during that freeze. The claims catastrophe-response period runs from weeks 18 through 21; only low-risk migration work may occur then.\n- Available team: one program manager, two identity architects, four identity engineers, three endpoint engineers, two messaging engineers, three application engineers, two security analysts, one compliance lead, and part-time representatives from the service desk, HR, legal, and each business unit.\n- Approved tooling budget beyond existing licenses is $180,000. A specialist migration vendor may be engaged, but vendor selection and onboarding require four weeks.\n\nNon-negotiable controls\n1. No bulk migration wave may begin until identity correlation reaches at least 99.95% accuracy and every unresolved collision has a named owner.\n2. Every privileged identity must use phishing-resistant MFA before it enters the destination tenant.\n3. Application owners must sign off on authentication, authorization, provisioning, deprovisioning, logging, and rollback tests.\n4. Legal holds and retention labels must be validated before mailbox or SharePoint migration.\n5. The source tenant must remain recoverable and read-only for at least 90 days after the final user wave.\n6. Rollback must be defined in operational terms, including the latest safe decision point, responsible role, expected recovery time, and treatment of writes made after cutover.\n\nCreate a decision-ready execution plan in Markdown. It must be specific enough for teams to schedule and operate from, not a generic identity-migration overview. Include:\n\n1. Executive recommendation: the proposed migration pattern, why it is preferable to plausible alternatives, the five largest risks, and the decisions executives must make within the next two weeks.\n2. Current-state problem decomposition: identity authority, authentication, authorization, lifecycle management, applications, messaging and collaboration, endpoints, Azure resources, privileged access, compliance, and support readiness.\n3. Target-state architecture: authoritative sources, joiner/mover/leaver flow, account-correlation keys, domain and namespace handling, cross-tenant coexistence, Conditional Access, passwordless authentication, PIM, emergency access, guest identities, logging, and decommissioning boundaries. Clearly distinguish temporary coexistence controls from the permanent design.\n4. A 28-week phase plan that accounts for both change freezes. Show phases, entry and exit criteria, dependencies, accountable roles, staffing pressure points, and tangible deliverables. Include pilot cohorts and explain why they are representative.\n5. Migration-wave design: propose cohort sizes and sequencing for employees, contractors, privileged users, shared accounts, kiosks, and each major device class. Define go/no-go thresholds and a 24-hour, 72-hour, and 7-day stabilization process for every wave.\n6. Application disposition: classify the 73 federated applications, 18 SCIM integrations, 34 LDAP applications, and seven object-ID-dependent applications into migration patterns. Provide a practical strategy for the three applications that cannot bulk-remap users, including trade-offs and escalation triggers. Do not assume an undocumented vendor capability.\n7. Identity-correlation and collision-resolution procedure: matching hierarchy, confidence levels, treatment of dual identities, duplicate aliases, guests, contractors, shared mailboxes, and people with name changes. Include a control-total approach and a sample exception-record format.\n8. Security and compliance control matrix with control objective, implementation, evidence, owner, validation point, and failure response. Cover privileged access, phishing-resistant MFA, separation of duties, audit retention, legal holds, data residency, consent, dormant accounts, emergency access, and source-tenant access during the 90-day recovery period.\n9. Operational cutover runbook for one representative 500-user wave. Give a time-ordered schedule from T-7 days through T+7 days, with checkpoints, communications, monitoring, reconciliation, rollback decision points, and named roles rather than individual names.\n10. Test and acceptance plan covering positive, negative, performance, security, lifecycle, application, device, coexistence, disaster-recovery, and rollback testing. Include measurable acceptance thresholds.\n11. Support and communications plan for executives, managers, end users, application owners, the service desk, security operations, and regional privacy stakeholders. Include service-desk staffing assumptions, escalation paths, and message timing, but do not draft lengthy email copy.\n12. RAID register containing at least 15 substantive items, each with probability, impact, leading indicator, mitigation, contingency, owner, and decision deadline.\n13. Budget allocation for the $180,000 incremental budget. Present a base case and a contingency case, state assumptions, and flag where staffing capacity rather than tooling is the binding constraint.\n14. Program scorecard with no more than 12 metrics. Define formula, data source, reporting cadence, target, warning threshold, and executive interpretation for each metric.\n15. A final one-page steering-committee checklist of approvals and unresolved decisions.\n\nUse concise prose, tables where they improve usability, and explicit recommendations. Identify assumptions and unknowns rather than silently inventing facts. Resolve tensions among schedule, security, reversibility, staffing, and user disruption. If the 28-week deadline is infeasible under the stated controls, say so clearly and present the smallest defensible scope or resource adjustment that would make it achievable.'
    }
  ]
})

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@opus-4.7",
            "settings": {
                "thinkingLevel": "high"
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Act as the principal identity architect for a regulated insurance group. Produce the execution plan that the CIO, CISO, service owners, and migration team will use to consolidate two Microsoft Entra ID tenants after an acquisition.\n\nScenario\n- Northstar Mutual has 11,800 employees in tenant N and acquired Harbor Specialty, which has 4,600 employees and 900 contractors in tenant H.\n- Tenant N will be the destination tenant. The program must finish within 28 weeks.\n- Both companies use Microsoft 365, Exchange Online, Teams, SharePoint, Intune, and Entra ID. Tenant H also has 73 enterprise applications using SAML or OIDC, 18 applications using SCIM provisioning, 34 legacy applications using LDAP through on-premises Active Directory, and 12 Azure subscriptions.\n- Tenant N uses cloud-native authentication with passwordless sign-in for 68% of employees. Tenant H synchronizes identities from two on-premises Active Directory forests and relies heavily on SMS MFA.\n- Harbor employees must retain their existing email addresses as aliases. Customer-facing staff cannot lose access to email, Teams, the claims platform, or telephony for more than 15 minutes during business hours.\n- Seven applications identify users by immutable object ID rather than email address. Three of those applications have no vendor-supported bulk remapping function.\n- There are approximately 1,200 guest-account collisions, 640 duplicate display names, 87 duplicate proxy addresses, and 46 people who already hold identities in both tenants.\n- Privileged roles are currently inconsistent. Tenant H has 39 Global Administrators, including 11 standing assignments and 6 shared emergency accounts. Tenant N uses Privileged Identity Management and maintains two monitored break-glass accounts.\n- Devices include 7,900 Windows laptops, 2,300 macOS devices, 3,100 managed mobile devices, 480 shared clinical-style kiosks used by claims adjusters, and 760 personally owned contractor devices.\n- The company operates in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany. The plan must respect least privilege, auditable approvals, data-residency obligations, legal holds, records-retention policies, and separation of duties. Do not provide legal conclusions; identify matters requiring counsel or privacy-officer approval.\n- Quarter-end runs from weeks 9 through 11, and no production identity changes are permitted during that freeze. The claims catastrophe-response period runs from weeks 18 through 21; only low-risk migration work may occur then.\n- Available team: one program manager, two identity architects, four identity engineers, three endpoint engineers, two messaging engineers, three application engineers, two security analysts, one compliance lead, and part-time representatives from the service desk, HR, legal, and each business unit.\n- Approved tooling budget beyond existing licenses is $180,000. A specialist migration vendor may be engaged, but vendor selection and onboarding require four weeks.\n\nNon-negotiable controls\n1. No bulk migration wave may begin until identity correlation reaches at least 99.95% accuracy and every unresolved collision has a named owner.\n2. Every privileged identity must use phishing-resistant MFA before it enters the destination tenant.\n3. Application owners must sign off on authentication, authorization, provisioning, deprovisioning, logging, and rollback tests.\n4. Legal holds and retention labels must be validated before mailbox or SharePoint migration.\n5. The source tenant must remain recoverable and read-only for at least 90 days after the final user wave.\n6. Rollback must be defined in operational terms, including the latest safe decision point, responsible role, expected recovery time, and treatment of writes made after cutover.\n\nCreate a decision-ready execution plan in Markdown. It must be specific enough for teams to schedule and operate from, not a generic identity-migration overview. Include:\n\n1. Executive recommendation: the proposed migration pattern, why it is preferable to plausible alternatives, the five largest risks, and the decisions executives must make within the next two weeks.\n2. Current-state problem decomposition: identity authority, authentication, authorization, lifecycle management, applications, messaging and collaboration, endpoints, Azure resources, privileged access, compliance, and support readiness.\n3. Target-state architecture: authoritative sources, joiner/mover/leaver flow, account-correlation keys, domain and namespace handling, cross-tenant coexistence, Conditional Access, passwordless authentication, PIM, emergency access, guest identities, logging, and decommissioning boundaries. Clearly distinguish temporary coexistence controls from the permanent design.\n4. A 28-week phase plan that accounts for both change freezes. Show phases, entry and exit criteria, dependencies, accountable roles, staffing pressure points, and tangible deliverables. Include pilot cohorts and explain why they are representative.\n5. Migration-wave design: propose cohort sizes and sequencing for employees, contractors, privileged users, shared accounts, kiosks, and each major device class. Define go/no-go thresholds and a 24-hour, 72-hour, and 7-day stabilization process for every wave.\n6. Application disposition: classify the 73 federated applications, 18 SCIM integrations, 34 LDAP applications, and seven object-ID-dependent applications into migration patterns. Provide a practical strategy for the three applications that cannot bulk-remap users, including trade-offs and escalation triggers. Do not assume an undocumented vendor capability.\n7. Identity-correlation and collision-resolution procedure: matching hierarchy, confidence levels, treatment of dual identities, duplicate aliases, guests, contractors, shared mailboxes, and people with name changes. Include a control-total approach and a sample exception-record format.\n8. Security and compliance control matrix with control objective, implementation, evidence, owner, validation point, and failure response. Cover privileged access, phishing-resistant MFA, separation of duties, audit retention, legal holds, data residency, consent, dormant accounts, emergency access, and source-tenant access during the 90-day recovery period.\n9. Operational cutover runbook for one representative 500-user wave. Give a time-ordered schedule from T-7 days through T+7 days, with checkpoints, communications, monitoring, reconciliation, rollback decision points, and named roles rather than individual names.\n10. Test and acceptance plan covering positive, negative, performance, security, lifecycle, application, device, coexistence, disaster-recovery, and rollback testing. Include measurable acceptance thresholds.\n11. Support and communications plan for executives, managers, end users, application owners, the service desk, security operations, and regional privacy stakeholders. Include service-desk staffing assumptions, escalation paths, and message timing, but do not draft lengthy email copy.\n12. RAID register containing at least 15 substantive items, each with probability, impact, leading indicator, mitigation, contingency, owner, and decision deadline.\n13. Budget allocation for the $180,000 incremental budget. Present a base case and a contingency case, state assumptions, and flag where staffing capacity rather than tooling is the binding constraint.\n14. Program scorecard with no more than 12 metrics. Define formula, data source, reporting cadence, target, warning threshold, and executive interpretation for each metric.\n15. A final one-page steering-committee checklist of approvals and unresolved decisions.\n\nUse concise prose, tables where they improve usability, and explicit recommendations. Identify assumptions and unknowns rather than silently inventing facts. Resolve tensions among schedule, security, reversibility, staffing, and user disruption. If the 28-week deadline is infeasible under the stated controls, say so clearly and present the smallest defensible scope or resource adjustment that would make it achievable."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "adbd5955-f339-4262-b369-1abc2788a08e",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.7",
      "settings": {
        "thinkingLevel": "high"
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Act as the principal identity architect for a regulated insurance group. Produce the execution plan that the CIO, CISO, service owners, and migration team will use to consolidate two Microsoft Entra ID tenants after an acquisition.\n\nScenario\n- Northstar Mutual has 11,800 employees in tenant N and acquired Harbor Specialty, which has 4,600 employees and 900 contractors in tenant H.\n- Tenant N will be the destination tenant. The program must finish within 28 weeks.\n- Both companies use Microsoft 365, Exchange Online, Teams, SharePoint, Intune, and Entra ID. Tenant H also has 73 enterprise applications using SAML or OIDC, 18 applications using SCIM provisioning, 34 legacy applications using LDAP through on-premises Active Directory, and 12 Azure subscriptions.\n- Tenant N uses cloud-native authentication with passwordless sign-in for 68% of employees. Tenant H synchronizes identities from two on-premises Active Directory forests and relies heavily on SMS MFA.\n- Harbor employees must retain their existing email addresses as aliases. Customer-facing staff cannot lose access to email, Teams, the claims platform, or telephony for more than 15 minutes during business hours.\n- Seven applications identify users by immutable object ID rather than email address. Three of those applications have no vendor-supported bulk remapping function.\n- There are approximately 1,200 guest-account collisions, 640 duplicate display names, 87 duplicate proxy addresses, and 46 people who already hold identities in both tenants.\n- Privileged roles are currently inconsistent. Tenant H has 39 Global Administrators, including 11 standing assignments and 6 shared emergency accounts. Tenant N uses Privileged Identity Management and maintains two monitored break-glass accounts.\n- Devices include 7,900 Windows laptops, 2,300 macOS devices, 3,100 managed mobile devices, 480 shared clinical-style kiosks used by claims adjusters, and 760 personally owned contractor devices.\n- The company operates in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany. The plan must respect least privilege, auditable approvals, data-residency obligations, legal holds, records-retention policies, and separation of duties. Do not provide legal conclusions; identify matters requiring counsel or privacy-officer approval.\n- Quarter-end runs from weeks 9 through 11, and no production identity changes are permitted during that freeze. The claims catastrophe-response period runs from weeks 18 through 21; only low-risk migration work may occur then.\n- Available team: one program manager, two identity architects, four identity engineers, three endpoint engineers, two messaging engineers, three application engineers, two security analysts, one compliance lead, and part-time representatives from the service desk, HR, legal, and each business unit.\n- Approved tooling budget beyond existing licenses is $180,000. A specialist migration vendor may be engaged, but vendor selection and onboarding require four weeks.\n\nNon-negotiable controls\n1. No bulk migration wave may begin until identity correlation reaches at least 99.95% accuracy and every unresolved collision has a named owner.\n2. Every privileged identity must use phishing-resistant MFA before it enters the destination tenant.\n3. Application owners must sign off on authentication, authorization, provisioning, deprovisioning, logging, and rollback tests.\n4. Legal holds and retention labels must be validated before mailbox or SharePoint migration.\n5. The source tenant must remain recoverable and read-only for at least 90 days after the final user wave.\n6. Rollback must be defined in operational terms, including the latest safe decision point, responsible role, expected recovery time, and treatment of writes made after cutover.\n\nCreate a decision-ready execution plan in Markdown. It must be specific enough for teams to schedule and operate from, not a generic identity-migration overview. Include:\n\n1. Executive recommendation: the proposed migration pattern, why it is preferable to plausible alternatives, the five largest risks, and the decisions executives must make within the next two weeks.\n2. Current-state problem decomposition: identity authority, authentication, authorization, lifecycle management, applications, messaging and collaboration, endpoints, Azure resources, privileged access, compliance, and support readiness.\n3. Target-state architecture: authoritative sources, joiner/mover/leaver flow, account-correlation keys, domain and namespace handling, cross-tenant coexistence, Conditional Access, passwordless authentication, PIM, emergency access, guest identities, logging, and decommissioning boundaries. Clearly distinguish temporary coexistence controls from the permanent design.\n4. A 28-week phase plan that accounts for both change freezes. Show phases, entry and exit criteria, dependencies, accountable roles, staffing pressure points, and tangible deliverables. Include pilot cohorts and explain why they are representative.\n5. Migration-wave design: propose cohort sizes and sequencing for employees, contractors, privileged users, shared accounts, kiosks, and each major device class. Define go/no-go thresholds and a 24-hour, 72-hour, and 7-day stabilization process for every wave.\n6. Application disposition: classify the 73 federated applications, 18 SCIM integrations, 34 LDAP applications, and seven object-ID-dependent applications into migration patterns. Provide a practical strategy for the three applications that cannot bulk-remap users, including trade-offs and escalation triggers. Do not assume an undocumented vendor capability.\n7. Identity-correlation and collision-resolution procedure: matching hierarchy, confidence levels, treatment of dual identities, duplicate aliases, guests, contractors, shared mailboxes, and people with name changes. Include a control-total approach and a sample exception-record format.\n8. Security and compliance control matrix with control objective, implementation, evidence, owner, validation point, and failure response. Cover privileged access, phishing-resistant MFA, separation of duties, audit retention, legal holds, data residency, consent, dormant accounts, emergency access, and source-tenant access during the 90-day recovery period.\n9. Operational cutover runbook for one representative 500-user wave. Give a time-ordered schedule from T-7 days through T+7 days, with checkpoints, communications, monitoring, reconciliation, rollback decision points, and named roles rather than individual names.\n10. Test and acceptance plan covering positive, negative, performance, security, lifecycle, application, device, coexistence, disaster-recovery, and rollback testing. Include measurable acceptance thresholds.\n11. Support and communications plan for executives, managers, end users, application owners, the service desk, security operations, and regional privacy stakeholders. Include service-desk staffing assumptions, escalation paths, and message timing, but do not draft lengthy email copy.\n12. RAID register containing at least 15 substantive items, each with probability, impact, leading indicator, mitigation, contingency, owner, and decision deadline.\n13. Budget allocation for the $180,000 incremental budget. Present a base case and a contingency case, state assumptions, and flag where staffing capacity rather than tooling is the binding constraint.\n14. Program scorecard with no more than 12 metrics. Define formula, data source, reporting cadence, target, warning threshold, and executive interpretation for each metric.\n15. A final one-page steering-committee checklist of approvals and unresolved decisions.\n\nUse concise prose, tables where they improve usability, and explicit recommendations. Identify assumptions and unknowns rather than silently inventing facts. Resolve tensions among schedule, security, reversibility, staffing, and user disruption. If the 28-week deadline is infeasible under the stated controls, say so clearly and present the smallest defensible scope or resource adjustment that would make it achievable."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@opus-4.7 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=high \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Act as the principal identity architect for a regulated insurance group. Produce the execution plan that the CIO, CISO, service owners, and migration team will use to consolidate two Microsoft Entra ID tenants after an acquisition.

Scenario
- Northstar Mutual has 11,800 employees in tenant N and acquired Harbor Specialty, which has 4,600 employees and 900 contractors in tenant H.
- Tenant N will be the destination tenant. The program must finish within 28 weeks.
- Both companies use Microsoft 365, Exchange Online, Teams, SharePoint, Intune, and Entra ID. Tenant H also has 73 enterprise applications using SAML or OIDC, 18 applications using SCIM provisioning, 34 legacy applications using LDAP through on-premises Active Directory, and 12 Azure subscriptions.
- Tenant N uses cloud-native authentication with passwordless sign-in for 68% of employees. Tenant H synchronizes identities from two on-premises Active Directory forests and relies heavily on SMS MFA.
- Harbor employees must retain their existing email addresses as aliases. Customer-facing staff cannot lose access to email, Teams, the claims platform, or telephony for more than 15 minutes during business hours.
- Seven applications identify users by immutable object ID rather than email address. Three of those applications have no vendor-supported bulk remapping function.
- There are approximately 1,200 guest-account collisions, 640 duplicate display names, 87 duplicate proxy addresses, and 46 people who already hold identities in both tenants.
- Privileged roles are currently inconsistent. Tenant H has 39 Global Administrators, including 11 standing assignments and 6 shared emergency accounts. Tenant N uses Privileged Identity Management and maintains two monitored break-glass accounts.
- Devices include 7,900 Windows laptops, 2,300 macOS devices, 3,100 managed mobile devices, 480 shared clinical-style kiosks used by claims adjusters, and 760 personally owned contractor devices.
- The company operates in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany. The plan must respect least privilege, auditable approvals, data-residency obligations, legal holds, records-retention policies, and separation of duties. Do not provide legal conclusions; identify matters requiring counsel or privacy-officer approval.
- Quarter-end runs from weeks 9 through 11, and no production identity changes are permitted during that freeze. The claims catastrophe-response period runs from weeks 18 through 21; only low-risk migration work may occur then.
- Available team: one program manager, two identity architects, four identity engineers, three endpoint engineers, two messaging engineers, three application engineers, two security analysts, one compliance lead, and part-time representatives from the service desk, HR, legal, and each business unit.
- Approved tooling budget beyond existing licenses is \$180,000. A specialist migration vendor may be engaged, but vendor selection and onboarding require four weeks.

Non-negotiable controls
1. No bulk migration wave may begin until identity correlation reaches at least 99.95% accuracy and every unresolved collision has a named owner.
2. Every privileged identity must use phishing-resistant MFA before it enters the destination tenant.
3. Application owners must sign off on authentication, authorization, provisioning, deprovisioning, logging, and rollback tests.
4. Legal holds and retention labels must be validated before mailbox or SharePoint migration.
5. The source tenant must remain recoverable and read-only for at least 90 days after the final user wave.
6. Rollback must be defined in operational terms, including the latest safe decision point, responsible role, expected recovery time, and treatment of writes made after cutover.

Create a decision-ready execution plan in Markdown. It must be specific enough for teams to schedule and operate from, not a generic identity-migration overview. Include:

1. Executive recommendation: the proposed migration pattern, why it is preferable to plausible alternatives, the five largest risks, and the decisions executives must make within the next two weeks.
2. Current-state problem decomposition: identity authority, authentication, authorization, lifecycle management, applications, messaging and collaboration, endpoints, Azure resources, privileged access, compliance, and support readiness.
3. Target-state architecture: authoritative sources, joiner/mover/leaver flow, account-correlation keys, domain and namespace handling, cross-tenant coexistence, Conditional Access, passwordless authentication, PIM, emergency access, guest identities, logging, and decommissioning boundaries. Clearly distinguish temporary coexistence controls from the permanent design.
4. A 28-week phase plan that accounts for both change freezes. Show phases, entry and exit criteria, dependencies, accountable roles, staffing pressure points, and tangible deliverables. Include pilot cohorts and explain why they are representative.
5. Migration-wave design: propose cohort sizes and sequencing for employees, contractors, privileged users, shared accounts, kiosks, and each major device class. Define go/no-go thresholds and a 24-hour, 72-hour, and 7-day stabilization process for every wave.
6. Application disposition: classify the 73 federated applications, 18 SCIM integrations, 34 LDAP applications, and seven object-ID-dependent applications into migration patterns. Provide a practical strategy for the three applications that cannot bulk-remap users, including trade-offs and escalation triggers. Do not assume an undocumented vendor capability.
7. Identity-correlation and collision-resolution procedure: matching hierarchy, confidence levels, treatment of dual identities, duplicate aliases, guests, contractors, shared mailboxes, and people with name changes. Include a control-total approach and a sample exception-record format.
8. Security and compliance control matrix with control objective, implementation, evidence, owner, validation point, and failure response. Cover privileged access, phishing-resistant MFA, separation of duties, audit retention, legal holds, data residency, consent, dormant accounts, emergency access, and source-tenant access during the 90-day recovery period.
9. Operational cutover runbook for one representative 500-user wave. Give a time-ordered schedule from T-7 days through T+7 days, with checkpoints, communications, monitoring, reconciliation, rollback decision points, and named roles rather than individual names.
10. Test and acceptance plan covering positive, negative, performance, security, lifecycle, application, device, coexistence, disaster-recovery, and rollback testing. Include measurable acceptance thresholds.
11. Support and communications plan for executives, managers, end users, application owners, the service desk, security operations, and regional privacy stakeholders. Include service-desk staffing assumptions, escalation paths, and message timing, but do not draft lengthy email copy.
12. RAID register containing at least 15 substantive items, each with probability, impact, leading indicator, mitigation, contingency, owner, and decision deadline.
13. Budget allocation for the \$180,000 incremental budget. Present a base case and a contingency case, state assumptions, and flag where staffing capacity rather than tooling is the binding constraint.
14. Program scorecard with no more than 12 metrics. Define formula, data source, reporting cadence, target, warning threshold, and executive interpretation for each metric.
15. A final one-page steering-committee checklist of approvals and unresolved decisions.

Use concise prose, tables where they improve usability, and explicit recommendations. Identify assumptions and unknowns rather than silently inventing facts. Resolve tensions among schedule, security, reversibility, staffing, and user disruption. If the 28-week deadline is infeasible under the stated controls, say so clearly and present the smallest defensible scope or resource adjustment that would make it achievable."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "adbd5955-f339-4262-b369-1abc2788a08e",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.7",
  "settings": {
    "thinkingLevel": "high"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Act as the principal identity architect for a regulated insurance group. Produce the execution plan that the CIO, CISO, service owners, and migration team will use to consolidate two Microsoft Entra ID tenants after an acquisition.\n\nScenario\n- Northstar Mutual has 11,800 employees in tenant N and acquired Harbor Specialty, which has 4,600 employees and 900 contractors in tenant H.\n- Tenant N will be the destination tenant. The program must finish within 28 weeks.\n- Both companies use Microsoft 365, Exchange Online, Teams, SharePoint, Intune, and Entra ID. Tenant H also has 73 enterprise applications using SAML or OIDC, 18 applications using SCIM provisioning, 34 legacy applications using LDAP through on-premises Active Directory, and 12 Azure subscriptions.\n- Tenant N uses cloud-native authentication with passwordless sign-in for 68% of employees. Tenant H synchronizes identities from two on-premises Active Directory forests and relies heavily on SMS MFA.\n- Harbor employees must retain their existing email addresses as aliases. Customer-facing staff cannot lose access to email, Teams, the claims platform, or telephony for more than 15 minutes during business hours.\n- Seven applications identify users by immutable object ID rather than email address. Three of those applications have no vendor-supported bulk remapping function.\n- There are approximately 1,200 guest-account collisions, 640 duplicate display names, 87 duplicate proxy addresses, and 46 people who already hold identities in both tenants.\n- Privileged roles are currently inconsistent. Tenant H has 39 Global Administrators, including 11 standing assignments and 6 shared emergency accounts. Tenant N uses Privileged Identity Management and maintains two monitored break-glass accounts.\n- Devices include 7,900 Windows laptops, 2,300 macOS devices, 3,100 managed mobile devices, 480 shared clinical-style kiosks used by claims adjusters, and 760 personally owned contractor devices.\n- The company operates in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany. The plan must respect least privilege, auditable approvals, data-residency obligations, legal holds, records-retention policies, and separation of duties. Do not provide legal conclusions; identify matters requiring counsel or privacy-officer approval.\n- Quarter-end runs from weeks 9 through 11, and no production identity changes are permitted during that freeze. The claims catastrophe-response period runs from weeks 18 through 21; only low-risk migration work may occur then.\n- Available team: one program manager, two identity architects, four identity engineers, three endpoint engineers, two messaging engineers, three application engineers, two security analysts, one compliance lead, and part-time representatives from the service desk, HR, legal, and each business unit.\n- Approved tooling budget beyond existing licenses is $180,000. A specialist migration vendor may be engaged, but vendor selection and onboarding require four weeks.\n\nNon-negotiable controls\n1. No bulk migration wave may begin until identity correlation reaches at least 99.95% accuracy and every unresolved collision has a named owner.\n2. Every privileged identity must use phishing-resistant MFA before it enters the destination tenant.\n3. Application owners must sign off on authentication, authorization, provisioning, deprovisioning, logging, and rollback tests.\n4. Legal holds and retention labels must be validated before mailbox or SharePoint migration.\n5. The source tenant must remain recoverable and read-only for at least 90 days after the final user wave.\n6. Rollback must be defined in operational terms, including the latest safe decision point, responsible role, expected recovery time, and treatment of writes made after cutover.\n\nCreate a decision-ready execution plan in Markdown. It must be specific enough for teams to schedule and operate from, not a generic identity-migration overview. Include:\n\n1. Executive recommendation: the proposed migration pattern, why it is preferable to plausible alternatives, the five largest risks, and the decisions executives must make within the next two weeks.\n2. Current-state problem decomposition: identity authority, authentication, authorization, lifecycle management, applications, messaging and collaboration, endpoints, Azure resources, privileged access, compliance, and support readiness.\n3. Target-state architecture: authoritative sources, joiner/mover/leaver flow, account-correlation keys, domain and namespace handling, cross-tenant coexistence, Conditional Access, passwordless authentication, PIM, emergency access, guest identities, logging, and decommissioning boundaries. Clearly distinguish temporary coexistence controls from the permanent design.\n4. A 28-week phase plan that accounts for both change freezes. Show phases, entry and exit criteria, dependencies, accountable roles, staffing pressure points, and tangible deliverables. Include pilot cohorts and explain why they are representative.\n5. Migration-wave design: propose cohort sizes and sequencing for employees, contractors, privileged users, shared accounts, kiosks, and each major device class. Define go/no-go thresholds and a 24-hour, 72-hour, and 7-day stabilization process for every wave.\n6. Application disposition: classify the 73 federated applications, 18 SCIM integrations, 34 LDAP applications, and seven object-ID-dependent applications into migration patterns. Provide a practical strategy for the three applications that cannot bulk-remap users, including trade-offs and escalation triggers. Do not assume an undocumented vendor capability.\n7. Identity-correlation and collision-resolution procedure: matching hierarchy, confidence levels, treatment of dual identities, duplicate aliases, guests, contractors, shared mailboxes, and people with name changes. Include a control-total approach and a sample exception-record format.\n8. Security and compliance control matrix with control objective, implementation, evidence, owner, validation point, and failure response. Cover privileged access, phishing-resistant MFA, separation of duties, audit retention, legal holds, data residency, consent, dormant accounts, emergency access, and source-tenant access during the 90-day recovery period.\n9. Operational cutover runbook for one representative 500-user wave. Give a time-ordered schedule from T-7 days through T+7 days, with checkpoints, communications, monitoring, reconciliation, rollback decision points, and named roles rather than individual names.\n10. Test and acceptance plan covering positive, negative, performance, security, lifecycle, application, device, coexistence, disaster-recovery, and rollback testing. Include measurable acceptance thresholds.\n11. Support and communications plan for executives, managers, end users, application owners, the service desk, security operations, and regional privacy stakeholders. Include service-desk staffing assumptions, escalation paths, and message timing, but do not draft lengthy email copy.\n12. RAID register containing at least 15 substantive items, each with probability, impact, leading indicator, mitigation, contingency, owner, and decision deadline.\n13. Budget allocation for the $180,000 incremental budget. Present a base case and a contingency case, state assumptions, and flag where staffing capacity rather than tooling is the binding constraint.\n14. Program scorecard with no more than 12 metrics. Define formula, data source, reporting cadence, target, warning threshold, and executive interpretation for each metric.\n15. A final one-page steering-committee checklist of approvals and unresolved decisions.\n\nUse concise prose, tables where they improve usability, and explicit recommendations. Identify assumptions and unknowns rather than silently inventing facts. Resolve tensions among schedule, security, reversibility, staffing, and user disruption. If the 28-week deadline is infeasible under the stated controls, say so clearly and present the smallest defensible scope or resource adjustment that would make it achievable."
    }
  ]
}

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@opus-4.7',
  settings: {
    systemPrompt: 'You are a meticulous manuscript analyst. When given an image, separate observation from inference, identify layout zones, note ambiguities explicitly, and avoid inventing unreadable text. Structure the response with concise headings.',
    thinkingLevel: 'high',
    maxTokens: 8192,
    cache: {
      scope: 'system',
      ttl: '1h'
    }
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Analyze the provided manuscript image as if assisting a digital humanities team. Report: 1) overall document type and probable era cues from visual evidence alone, 2) page layout and reading order, 3) distinctions between primary script and later annotations, 4) decorative or functional marks such as initials, ruling, stamps, seals, numbering, or damage, 5) a cautious partial transcription of any clearly legible words or phrases only, 6) a short preservation note highlighting issues a conservator should inspect. End with a bullet list titled \'Uncertainties\'.'
    }
  ]
})

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@opus-4.7",
            "settings": {
                "systemPrompt": "You are a meticulous manuscript analyst. When given an image, separate observation from inference, identify layout zones, note ambiguities explicitly, and avoid inventing unreadable text. Structure the response with concise headings.",
                "thinkingLevel": "high",
                "maxTokens": 8192,
                "cache": {
                    "scope": "system",
                    "ttl": "1h"
                }
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Analyze the provided manuscript image as if assisting a digital humanities team. Report: 1) overall document type and probable era cues from visual evidence alone, 2) page layout and reading order, 3) distinctions between primary script and later annotations, 4) decorative or functional marks such as initials, ruling, stamps, seals, numbering, or damage, 5) a cautious partial transcription of any clearly legible words or phrases only, 6) a short preservation note highlighting issues a conservator should inspect. End with a bullet list titled 'Uncertainties'."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "bd34e44f-a834-41c7-ae68-9714165accdd",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.7",
      "settings": {
        "systemPrompt": "You are a meticulous manuscript analyst. When given an image, separate observation from inference, identify layout zones, note ambiguities explicitly, and avoid inventing unreadable text. Structure the response with concise headings.",
        "thinkingLevel": "high",
        "maxTokens": 8192,
        "cache": {
          "scope": "system",
          "ttl": "1h"
        }
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Analyze the provided manuscript image as if assisting a digital humanities team. Report: 1) overall document type and probable era cues from visual evidence alone, 2) page layout and reading order, 3) distinctions between primary script and later annotations, 4) decorative or functional marks such as initials, ruling, stamps, seals, numbering, or damage, 5) a cautious partial transcription of any clearly legible words or phrases only, 6) a short preservation note highlighting issues a conservator should inspect. End with a bullet list titled 'Uncertainties'."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@opus-4.7 \
  settings.systemPrompt="You are a meticulous manuscript analyst. When given an image, separate observation from inference, identify layout zones, note ambiguities explicitly, and avoid inventing unreadable text. Structure the response with concise headings." \
  settings.thinkingLevel=high \
  settings.maxTokens=8192 \
  settings.cache.scope=system \
  settings.cache.ttl=1h \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Analyze the provided manuscript image as if assisting a digital humanities team. Report: 1) overall document type and probable era cues from visual evidence alone, 2) page layout and reading order, 3) distinctions between primary script and later annotations, 4) decorative or functional marks such as initials, ruling, stamps, seals, numbering, or damage, 5) a cautious partial transcription of any clearly legible words or phrases only, 6) a short preservation note highlighting issues a conservator should inspect. End with a bullet list titled 'Uncertainties'."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "bd34e44f-a834-41c7-ae68-9714165accdd",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.7",
  "settings": {
    "systemPrompt": "You are a meticulous manuscript analyst. When given an image, separate observation from inference, identify layout zones, note ambiguities explicitly, and avoid inventing unreadable text. Structure the response with concise headings.",
    "thinkingLevel": "high",
    "maxTokens": 8192,
    "cache": {
      "scope": "system",
      "ttl": "1h"
    }
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Analyze the provided manuscript image as if assisting a digital humanities team. Report: 1) overall document type and probable era cues from visual evidence alone, 2) page layout and reading order, 3) distinctions between primary script and later annotations, 4) decorative or functional marks such as initials, ruling, stamps, seals, numbering, or damage, 5) a cautious partial transcription of any clearly legible words or phrases only, 6) a short preservation note highlighting issues a conservator should inspect. End with a bullet list titled 'Uncertainties'."
    }
  ]
}

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@opus-4.7',
  settings: {
    systemPrompt: 'You are a meticulous archival analysis assistant. Examine documents carefully, distinguish observed content from uncertain interpretation, preserve line-item nuance, and provide professional, decision-useful summaries. When text is partially obscured or ambiguous, say so explicitly instead of guessing.',
    maxTokens: 8192,
    thinkingLevel: 'high',
    cache: {
      scope: 'system',
      ttl: '1h'
    }
  },
  inputs: {
    images: [
      'https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/177b42d4-9bd5-4ead-9260-96783e5b5c07.jpg'
    ]
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Review the attached manuscript page as if you were assisting a university special-collections team. Provide: 1) a concise overview of the document\'s apparent purpose, 2) a bullet list of all visible annotations or editorial interventions, grouped by type, 3) any signs of physical damage or conservation concern, 4) a short table with columns [Issue, Evidence Seen, Confidence, Recommended Next Step], and 5) a final transcription-risk note describing which regions may require human verification. Do not invent text that is not clearly visible.'
    }
  ]
})

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@opus-4.7",
            "settings": {
                "systemPrompt": "You are a meticulous archival analysis assistant. Examine documents carefully, distinguish observed content from uncertain interpretation, preserve line-item nuance, and provide professional, decision-useful summaries. When text is partially obscured or ambiguous, say so explicitly instead of guessing.",
                "maxTokens": 8192,
                "thinkingLevel": "high",
                "cache": {
                    "scope": "system",
                    "ttl": "1h"
                }
            },
            "inputs": {
                "images": [
                    "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/177b42d4-9bd5-4ead-9260-96783e5b5c07.jpg"
                ]
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Review the attached manuscript page as if you were assisting a university special-collections team. Provide: 1) a concise overview of the document's apparent purpose, 2) a bullet list of all visible annotations or editorial interventions, grouped by type, 3) any signs of physical damage or conservation concern, 4) a short table with columns [Issue, Evidence Seen, Confidence, Recommended Next Step], and 5) a final transcription-risk note describing which regions may require human verification. Do not invent text that is not clearly visible."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "e759fe22-6cff-4717-85e2-d224734a05e6",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.7",
      "settings": {
        "systemPrompt": "You are a meticulous archival analysis assistant. Examine documents carefully, distinguish observed content from uncertain interpretation, preserve line-item nuance, and provide professional, decision-useful summaries. When text is partially obscured or ambiguous, say so explicitly instead of guessing.",
        "maxTokens": 8192,
        "thinkingLevel": "high",
        "cache": {
          "scope": "system",
          "ttl": "1h"
        }
      },
      "inputs": {
        "images": [
          "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/177b42d4-9bd5-4ead-9260-96783e5b5c07.jpg"
        ]
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Review the attached manuscript page as if you were assisting a university special-collections team. Provide: 1) a concise overview of the document's apparent purpose, 2) a bullet list of all visible annotations or editorial interventions, grouped by type, 3) any signs of physical damage or conservation concern, 4) a short table with columns [Issue, Evidence Seen, Confidence, Recommended Next Step], and 5) a final transcription-risk note describing which regions may require human verification. Do not invent text that is not clearly visible."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@opus-4.7 \
  settings.systemPrompt="You are a meticulous archival analysis assistant. Examine documents carefully, distinguish observed content from uncertain interpretation, preserve line-item nuance, and provide professional, decision-useful summaries. When text is partially obscured or ambiguous, say so explicitly instead of guessing." \
  settings.maxTokens=8192 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=high \
  settings.cache.scope=system \
  settings.cache.ttl=1h \
  inputs.images.0=https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/177b42d4-9bd5-4ead-9260-96783e5b5c07.jpg \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Review the attached manuscript page as if you were assisting a university special-collections team. Provide: 1) a concise overview of the document's apparent purpose, 2) a bullet list of all visible annotations or editorial interventions, grouped by type, 3) any signs of physical damage or conservation concern, 4) a short table with columns [Issue, Evidence Seen, Confidence, Recommended Next Step], and 5) a final transcription-risk note describing which regions may require human verification. Do not invent text that is not clearly visible."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "e759fe22-6cff-4717-85e2-d224734a05e6",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.7",
  "settings": {
    "systemPrompt": "You are a meticulous archival analysis assistant. Examine documents carefully, distinguish observed content from uncertain interpretation, preserve line-item nuance, and provide professional, decision-useful summaries. When text is partially obscured or ambiguous, say so explicitly instead of guessing.",
    "maxTokens": 8192,
    "thinkingLevel": "high",
    "cache": {
      "scope": "system",
      "ttl": "1h"
    }
  },
  "inputs": {
    "images": [
      "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/177b42d4-9bd5-4ead-9260-96783e5b5c07.jpg"
    ]
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Review the attached manuscript page as if you were assisting a university special-collections team. Provide: 1) a concise overview of the document's apparent purpose, 2) a bullet list of all visible annotations or editorial interventions, grouped by type, 3) any signs of physical damage or conservation concern, 4) a short table with columns [Issue, Evidence Seen, Confidence, Recommended Next Step], and 5) a final transcription-risk note describing which regions may require human verification. Do not invent text that is not clearly visible."
    }
  ]
}

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@opus-4.7',
  settings: {
    thinkingLevel: 'adaptive'
  },
  inputs: {
    images: [
      'https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/41ceb2bf-607f-464a-b09e-34b00d03b09a.jpg'
    ]
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Act as a retail merchandising auditor. Inspect the attached photograph of the refrigerated beverage bay and produce a concise, field-ready compliance report grounded only in details that are visibly supported by the image.\n\nStructure the report as follows:\n\n1. Executive summary: 3–5 sentences describing the display\'s overall condition and the most commercially significant issues.\n2. Shelf inventory table: one row per shelf, numbered top to bottom. Include visible product category or recognizable product family, estimated occupied facings, estimated empty facings, notable placement issues, and confidence level.\n3. Exceptions log: list each visible stockout, low-stock row, misplaced item, fallen or poorly faced product, blocked label, missing or mismatched shelf label, and promotional inconsistency. For each exception, identify its location precisely using shelf number and left/center/right position.\n4. Pricing and promotion review: transcribe only shelf-label or promotional text that is genuinely legible. Place uncertain characters in square brackets and write “not legible” rather than guessing.\n5. Priority actions: provide a ranked list of no more than six corrective actions for the store team, separating immediate fixes from replenishment follow-up.\n6. Evidence limitations: note glare, occlusion, perspective, resolution, or other factors that prevent reliable conclusions.\n\nDo not invent brand names, prices, planogram requirements, SKU identities, or items outside the frame. Distinguish confirmed observations from estimates. Where exact facing counts are ambiguous, give a range and explain why.'
    }
  ]
})

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@opus-4.7",
            "settings": {
                "thinkingLevel": "adaptive"
            },
            "inputs": {
                "images": [
                    "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/41ceb2bf-607f-464a-b09e-34b00d03b09a.jpg"
                ]
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Act as a retail merchandising auditor. Inspect the attached photograph of the refrigerated beverage bay and produce a concise, field-ready compliance report grounded only in details that are visibly supported by the image.\n\nStructure the report as follows:\n\n1. Executive summary: 3–5 sentences describing the display's overall condition and the most commercially significant issues.\n2. Shelf inventory table: one row per shelf, numbered top to bottom. Include visible product category or recognizable product family, estimated occupied facings, estimated empty facings, notable placement issues, and confidence level.\n3. Exceptions log: list each visible stockout, low-stock row, misplaced item, fallen or poorly faced product, blocked label, missing or mismatched shelf label, and promotional inconsistency. For each exception, identify its location precisely using shelf number and left/center/right position.\n4. Pricing and promotion review: transcribe only shelf-label or promotional text that is genuinely legible. Place uncertain characters in square brackets and write “not legible” rather than guessing.\n5. Priority actions: provide a ranked list of no more than six corrective actions for the store team, separating immediate fixes from replenishment follow-up.\n6. Evidence limitations: note glare, occlusion, perspective, resolution, or other factors that prevent reliable conclusions.\n\nDo not invent brand names, prices, planogram requirements, SKU identities, or items outside the frame. Distinguish confirmed observations from estimates. Where exact facing counts are ambiguous, give a range and explain why."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "fa0a864a-0e73-418a-a7eb-e9a4cb8fff7c",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.7",
      "settings": {
        "thinkingLevel": "adaptive"
      },
      "inputs": {
        "images": [
          "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/41ceb2bf-607f-464a-b09e-34b00d03b09a.jpg"
        ]
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Act as a retail merchandising auditor. Inspect the attached photograph of the refrigerated beverage bay and produce a concise, field-ready compliance report grounded only in details that are visibly supported by the image.\n\nStructure the report as follows:\n\n1. Executive summary: 3–5 sentences describing the display's overall condition and the most commercially significant issues.\n2. Shelf inventory table: one row per shelf, numbered top to bottom. Include visible product category or recognizable product family, estimated occupied facings, estimated empty facings, notable placement issues, and confidence level.\n3. Exceptions log: list each visible stockout, low-stock row, misplaced item, fallen or poorly faced product, blocked label, missing or mismatched shelf label, and promotional inconsistency. For each exception, identify its location precisely using shelf number and left/center/right position.\n4. Pricing and promotion review: transcribe only shelf-label or promotional text that is genuinely legible. Place uncertain characters in square brackets and write “not legible” rather than guessing.\n5. Priority actions: provide a ranked list of no more than six corrective actions for the store team, separating immediate fixes from replenishment follow-up.\n6. Evidence limitations: note glare, occlusion, perspective, resolution, or other factors that prevent reliable conclusions.\n\nDo not invent brand names, prices, planogram requirements, SKU identities, or items outside the frame. Distinguish confirmed observations from estimates. Where exact facing counts are ambiguous, give a range and explain why."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@opus-4.7 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=adaptive \
  inputs.images.0=https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/41ceb2bf-607f-464a-b09e-34b00d03b09a.jpg \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Act as a retail merchandising auditor. Inspect the attached photograph of the refrigerated beverage bay and produce a concise, field-ready compliance report grounded only in details that are visibly supported by the image.

Structure the report as follows:

1. Executive summary: 3–5 sentences describing the display's overall condition and the most commercially significant issues.
2. Shelf inventory table: one row per shelf, numbered top to bottom. Include visible product category or recognizable product family, estimated occupied facings, estimated empty facings, notable placement issues, and confidence level.
3. Exceptions log: list each visible stockout, low-stock row, misplaced item, fallen or poorly faced product, blocked label, missing or mismatched shelf label, and promotional inconsistency. For each exception, identify its location precisely using shelf number and left/center/right position.
4. Pricing and promotion review: transcribe only shelf-label or promotional text that is genuinely legible. Place uncertain characters in square brackets and write “not legible” rather than guessing.
5. Priority actions: provide a ranked list of no more than six corrective actions for the store team, separating immediate fixes from replenishment follow-up.
6. Evidence limitations: note glare, occlusion, perspective, resolution, or other factors that prevent reliable conclusions.

Do not invent brand names, prices, planogram requirements, SKU identities, or items outside the frame. Distinguish confirmed observations from estimates. Where exact facing counts are ambiguous, give a range and explain why."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "fa0a864a-0e73-418a-a7eb-e9a4cb8fff7c",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.7",
  "settings": {
    "thinkingLevel": "adaptive"
  },
  "inputs": {
    "images": [
      "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/41ceb2bf-607f-464a-b09e-34b00d03b09a.jpg"
    ]
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Act as a retail merchandising auditor. Inspect the attached photograph of the refrigerated beverage bay and produce a concise, field-ready compliance report grounded only in details that are visibly supported by the image.\n\nStructure the report as follows:\n\n1. Executive summary: 3–5 sentences describing the display's overall condition and the most commercially significant issues.\n2. Shelf inventory table: one row per shelf, numbered top to bottom. Include visible product category or recognizable product family, estimated occupied facings, estimated empty facings, notable placement issues, and confidence level.\n3. Exceptions log: list each visible stockout, low-stock row, misplaced item, fallen or poorly faced product, blocked label, missing or mismatched shelf label, and promotional inconsistency. For each exception, identify its location precisely using shelf number and left/center/right position.\n4. Pricing and promotion review: transcribe only shelf-label or promotional text that is genuinely legible. Place uncertain characters in square brackets and write “not legible” rather than guessing.\n5. Priority actions: provide a ranked list of no more than six corrective actions for the store team, separating immediate fixes from replenishment follow-up.\n6. Evidence limitations: note glare, occlusion, perspective, resolution, or other factors that prevent reliable conclusions.\n\nDo not invent brand names, prices, planogram requirements, SKU identities, or items outside the frame. Distinguish confirmed observations from estimates. Where exact facing counts are ambiguous, give a range and explain why."
    }
  ]
}

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@opus-4.7',
  settings: {
    systemPrompt: 'You are a meticulous aerospace records recovery analyst. Examine the provided image carefully and respond with: 1) a concise scene summary, 2) all visible identifiers or labels transcribed exactly when legible, 3) a damage map by region, 4) a prioritized recovery plan, 5) ambiguities and confidence notes. Be precise, conservative, and professionally formatted.',
    maxTokens: 8192,
    thinkingLevel: 'high'
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Analyze the attached image of an orbital records compartment after a containment breach. Focus on document cabinets, exposed binders, status screens, handwritten tags, scorch patterns, floating debris, and any visible inventory markings. Then produce a triage report with sections: Scene Summary; Visible Text; Damage Assessment; Recovery Priorities; Risks; Confidence Notes.'
    }
  ]
})

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@opus-4.7",
            "settings": {
                "systemPrompt": "You are a meticulous aerospace records recovery analyst. Examine the provided image carefully and respond with: 1) a concise scene summary, 2) all visible identifiers or labels transcribed exactly when legible, 3) a damage map by region, 4) a prioritized recovery plan, 5) ambiguities and confidence notes. Be precise, conservative, and professionally formatted.",
                "maxTokens": 8192,
                "thinkingLevel": "high"
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Analyze the attached image of an orbital records compartment after a containment breach. Focus on document cabinets, exposed binders, status screens, handwritten tags, scorch patterns, floating debris, and any visible inventory markings. Then produce a triage report with sections: Scene Summary; Visible Text; Damage Assessment; Recovery Priorities; Risks; Confidence Notes."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "39c32967-1102-4455-9ab0-c97be55e557a",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.7",
      "settings": {
        "systemPrompt": "You are a meticulous aerospace records recovery analyst. Examine the provided image carefully and respond with: 1) a concise scene summary, 2) all visible identifiers or labels transcribed exactly when legible, 3) a damage map by region, 4) a prioritized recovery plan, 5) ambiguities and confidence notes. Be precise, conservative, and professionally formatted.",
        "maxTokens": 8192,
        "thinkingLevel": "high"
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Analyze the attached image of an orbital records compartment after a containment breach. Focus on document cabinets, exposed binders, status screens, handwritten tags, scorch patterns, floating debris, and any visible inventory markings. Then produce a triage report with sections: Scene Summary; Visible Text; Damage Assessment; Recovery Priorities; Risks; Confidence Notes."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@opus-4.7 \
  settings.systemPrompt="You are a meticulous aerospace records recovery analyst. Examine the provided image carefully and respond with: 1) a concise scene summary, 2) all visible identifiers or labels transcribed exactly when legible, 3) a damage map by region, 4) a prioritized recovery plan, 5) ambiguities and confidence notes. Be precise, conservative, and professionally formatted." \
  settings.maxTokens=8192 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=high \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Analyze the attached image of an orbital records compartment after a containment breach. Focus on document cabinets, exposed binders, status screens, handwritten tags, scorch patterns, floating debris, and any visible inventory markings. Then produce a triage report with sections: Scene Summary; Visible Text; Damage Assessment; Recovery Priorities; Risks; Confidence Notes."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "39c32967-1102-4455-9ab0-c97be55e557a",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.7",
  "settings": {
    "systemPrompt": "You are a meticulous aerospace records recovery analyst. Examine the provided image carefully and respond with: 1) a concise scene summary, 2) all visible identifiers or labels transcribed exactly when legible, 3) a damage map by region, 4) a prioritized recovery plan, 5) ambiguities and confidence notes. Be precise, conservative, and professionally formatted.",
    "maxTokens": 8192,
    "thinkingLevel": "high"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Analyze the attached image of an orbital records compartment after a containment breach. Focus on document cabinets, exposed binders, status screens, handwritten tags, scorch patterns, floating debris, and any visible inventory markings. Then produce a triage report with sections: Scene Summary; Visible Text; Damage Assessment; Recovery Priorities; Risks; Confidence Notes."
    }
  ]
}

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@opus-4.7',
  settings: {
    thinkingLevel: 'high'
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Act as the principal engineer responsible for resolving a recurring payment-integrity incident at Northstar Billing, a multi-tenant subscription platform. Produce a technical remediation plan that engineering, SRE, security, finance operations, and support can approve and execute.\n\nCURRENT SYSTEM\n- A Go API receives Stripe, Adyen, and PayPal webhooks through an AWS Application Load Balancer.\n- API instances validate provider signatures, translate payloads into an internal event shape, publish to an Amazon SNS standard topic, and immediately return HTTP 200.\n- SNS fans out to SQS standard queues for Ledger, Entitlements, Email, and Analytics services.\n- Ledger workers write to PostgreSQL 15. Entitlements workers update DynamoDB. Each service retries independently.\n- The internal event currently contains provider, provider event ID, tenant ID, event type, payment ID, amount, currency, provider timestamp, and payload.\n- There is no shared idempotency mechanism. Ledger attempts to detect duplicates by querying provider_event_id before inserting, but the check and insert are separate statements.\n- Some tenants use multiple merchant accounts. Provider event IDs are unique only within a merchant account, although merchant account ID is not currently included in the internal event.\n- Deployments run on EKS across three availability zones. PostgreSQL uses RDS Multi-AZ with one writer. Redis exists but is configured as a non-durable cache and must not be the source of truth.\n\nINCIDENT EVIDENCE\n- During a 47-minute SNS delivery degradation, retry bursts produced 18,420 duplicate deliveries from 6,130 distinct provider events.\n- 286 duplicate ledger entries were created. Of these, 41 triggered duplicate customer credits and 17 triggered duplicate entitlement extensions.\n- Two legitimate recurring-payment events were incorrectly suppressed because different merchant accounts emitted the same provider event ID.\n- Duplicate deliveries can arrive concurrently, minutes later, or up to seven days later after manual replay.\n- Events from a single payment can arrive out of order; for example, payment.refunded may be observed before payment.captured.\n- Finance requires an immutable record of every received delivery, including duplicates, signature result, original receipt time, and processing outcome.\n- Security prohibits storing full raw webhook payloads when they contain unnecessary personal data. Required financial records must remain available for seven years; operational delivery metadata may be archived after 90 days.\n\nBUSINESS AND DELIVERY CONSTRAINTS\n- Sustained traffic is 2,000 webhook deliveries per second, with bursts to 10,000 per second for five minutes.\n- Added webhook-ingress latency must remain below 80 ms at p99.\n- No more than five minutes of planned write unavailability is acceptable.\n- The migration must not pause webhook intake or require coordinated deployment of every consumer.\n- Existing consumers cannot all be changed immediately. Ledger and Entitlements can be modified in the first release; Email and Analytics will migrate later.\n- At-least-once transport is acceptable. Do not claim exactly-once delivery. The required outcome is effectively-once execution of each business effect.\n- PostgreSQL remains the ledger system of record. You may introduce additional AWS managed services only when justified.\n- The first production release must be achievable by six engineers within eight weeks.\n- Assume provider signatures are already implemented correctly; signature redesign is out of scope.\n\nREQUIRED DELIVERABLE\nWrite a self-contained engineering design document in Markdown. Use concrete decisions rather than presenting an unranked menu of options. Include:\n\n1. Executive summary and explicit success criteria.\n2. Failure analysis explaining the race condition, collision domain, retry behavior, out-of-order events, and why SNS/SQS FIFO alone would not solve the complete problem.\n3. The proposed target architecture from ingress through durable receipt, publication, consumption, business-effect execution, replay, and audit. Clearly identify every transactional boundary and source of truth.\n4. A canonical event envelope with field names, types, required/optional status, and semantics. Define a collision-safe idempotency key that accounts for provider and merchant account scope. Explain handling for providers that do not supply a stable event ID.\n5. PostgreSQL table designs for the immutable delivery journal, canonical events, processing attempts, and business-effect idempotency records. Provide representative PostgreSQL DDL, including primary keys, unique constraints, indexes, partitioning or retention strategy, and only the most important columns.\n6. Transaction pseudocode for both Ledger and Entitlements consumers. Show how concurrent duplicate deliveries are resolved atomically, how failures are retried safely, and how a claimed operation is recovered if a worker dies. Address the fact that DynamoDB cannot participate in the PostgreSQL transaction.\n7. A state-machine strategy for out-of-order payment lifecycle events. Distinguish transport deduplication from business-state transition validation, including how refunds observed before captures are handled without silently losing either event.\n8. Capacity reasoning using the supplied sustained and burst rates. Estimate daily delivery volume, propose partition sizing and hot-path indexes, identify likely bottlenecks, and state which assumptions require load testing. Approximate calculations are sufficient but must be shown.\n9. A zero-intake-downtime migration plan with phases, dual-write or shadow-validation behavior, backward compatibility for unmigrated consumers, backfill strategy, rollback criteria, and safeguards against creating effects twice during rollback.\n10. An observability plan with specific metrics, structured-log fields, traces, dashboards, and alert thresholds. Include detection of duplicates prevented, key collisions, invalid transitions, stuck work, replay activity, journal lag, and reconciliation mismatches.\n11. A reconciliation and repair procedure finance operations can run. Explain how it compares provider records, the delivery journal, canonical events, and ledger effects without automatically issuing money-moving corrections.\n12. A security, privacy, and retention section covering payload minimization, encryption, tenant isolation, privileged replay controls, seven-year financial retention, and archival or deletion of operational data.\n13. A focused test strategy covering concurrency, crash recovery, delayed duplicates, event-ID collisions across merchant accounts, out-of-order events, partial downstream failure, replay, migration compatibility, and burst load.\n14. An eight-week implementation sequence divided into workstreams, with dependencies, ownership by role, go/no-go gates, and the smallest safe first production scope.\n15. A risk register listing likelihood, impact, mitigation, and a measurable trigger for each major risk.\n16. A final architecture decision record summarizing the chosen approach, rejected alternatives, and consequences.\n\nBe precise about delivery semantics and do not use vague claims such as exactly-once processing without defining the scope and mechanism. Explicitly separate facts supplied above from assumptions you introduce. Keep the document detailed enough for implementation review while prioritizing the highest-risk decisions over generic background explanation.'
    }
  ]
})

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@opus-4.7",
            "settings": {
                "thinkingLevel": "high"
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Act as the principal engineer responsible for resolving a recurring payment-integrity incident at Northstar Billing, a multi-tenant subscription platform. Produce a technical remediation plan that engineering, SRE, security, finance operations, and support can approve and execute.\n\nCURRENT SYSTEM\n- A Go API receives Stripe, Adyen, and PayPal webhooks through an AWS Application Load Balancer.\n- API instances validate provider signatures, translate payloads into an internal event shape, publish to an Amazon SNS standard topic, and immediately return HTTP 200.\n- SNS fans out to SQS standard queues for Ledger, Entitlements, Email, and Analytics services.\n- Ledger workers write to PostgreSQL 15. Entitlements workers update DynamoDB. Each service retries independently.\n- The internal event currently contains provider, provider event ID, tenant ID, event type, payment ID, amount, currency, provider timestamp, and payload.\n- There is no shared idempotency mechanism. Ledger attempts to detect duplicates by querying provider_event_id before inserting, but the check and insert are separate statements.\n- Some tenants use multiple merchant accounts. Provider event IDs are unique only within a merchant account, although merchant account ID is not currently included in the internal event.\n- Deployments run on EKS across three availability zones. PostgreSQL uses RDS Multi-AZ with one writer. Redis exists but is configured as a non-durable cache and must not be the source of truth.\n\nINCIDENT EVIDENCE\n- During a 47-minute SNS delivery degradation, retry bursts produced 18,420 duplicate deliveries from 6,130 distinct provider events.\n- 286 duplicate ledger entries were created. Of these, 41 triggered duplicate customer credits and 17 triggered duplicate entitlement extensions.\n- Two legitimate recurring-payment events were incorrectly suppressed because different merchant accounts emitted the same provider event ID.\n- Duplicate deliveries can arrive concurrently, minutes later, or up to seven days later after manual replay.\n- Events from a single payment can arrive out of order; for example, payment.refunded may be observed before payment.captured.\n- Finance requires an immutable record of every received delivery, including duplicates, signature result, original receipt time, and processing outcome.\n- Security prohibits storing full raw webhook payloads when they contain unnecessary personal data. Required financial records must remain available for seven years; operational delivery metadata may be archived after 90 days.\n\nBUSINESS AND DELIVERY CONSTRAINTS\n- Sustained traffic is 2,000 webhook deliveries per second, with bursts to 10,000 per second for five minutes.\n- Added webhook-ingress latency must remain below 80 ms at p99.\n- No more than five minutes of planned write unavailability is acceptable.\n- The migration must not pause webhook intake or require coordinated deployment of every consumer.\n- Existing consumers cannot all be changed immediately. Ledger and Entitlements can be modified in the first release; Email and Analytics will migrate later.\n- At-least-once transport is acceptable. Do not claim exactly-once delivery. The required outcome is effectively-once execution of each business effect.\n- PostgreSQL remains the ledger system of record. You may introduce additional AWS managed services only when justified.\n- The first production release must be achievable by six engineers within eight weeks.\n- Assume provider signatures are already implemented correctly; signature redesign is out of scope.\n\nREQUIRED DELIVERABLE\nWrite a self-contained engineering design document in Markdown. Use concrete decisions rather than presenting an unranked menu of options. Include:\n\n1. Executive summary and explicit success criteria.\n2. Failure analysis explaining the race condition, collision domain, retry behavior, out-of-order events, and why SNS/SQS FIFO alone would not solve the complete problem.\n3. The proposed target architecture from ingress through durable receipt, publication, consumption, business-effect execution, replay, and audit. Clearly identify every transactional boundary and source of truth.\n4. A canonical event envelope with field names, types, required/optional status, and semantics. Define a collision-safe idempotency key that accounts for provider and merchant account scope. Explain handling for providers that do not supply a stable event ID.\n5. PostgreSQL table designs for the immutable delivery journal, canonical events, processing attempts, and business-effect idempotency records. Provide representative PostgreSQL DDL, including primary keys, unique constraints, indexes, partitioning or retention strategy, and only the most important columns.\n6. Transaction pseudocode for both Ledger and Entitlements consumers. Show how concurrent duplicate deliveries are resolved atomically, how failures are retried safely, and how a claimed operation is recovered if a worker dies. Address the fact that DynamoDB cannot participate in the PostgreSQL transaction.\n7. A state-machine strategy for out-of-order payment lifecycle events. Distinguish transport deduplication from business-state transition validation, including how refunds observed before captures are handled without silently losing either event.\n8. Capacity reasoning using the supplied sustained and burst rates. Estimate daily delivery volume, propose partition sizing and hot-path indexes, identify likely bottlenecks, and state which assumptions require load testing. Approximate calculations are sufficient but must be shown.\n9. A zero-intake-downtime migration plan with phases, dual-write or shadow-validation behavior, backward compatibility for unmigrated consumers, backfill strategy, rollback criteria, and safeguards against creating effects twice during rollback.\n10. An observability plan with specific metrics, structured-log fields, traces, dashboards, and alert thresholds. Include detection of duplicates prevented, key collisions, invalid transitions, stuck work, replay activity, journal lag, and reconciliation mismatches.\n11. A reconciliation and repair procedure finance operations can run. Explain how it compares provider records, the delivery journal, canonical events, and ledger effects without automatically issuing money-moving corrections.\n12. A security, privacy, and retention section covering payload minimization, encryption, tenant isolation, privileged replay controls, seven-year financial retention, and archival or deletion of operational data.\n13. A focused test strategy covering concurrency, crash recovery, delayed duplicates, event-ID collisions across merchant accounts, out-of-order events, partial downstream failure, replay, migration compatibility, and burst load.\n14. An eight-week implementation sequence divided into workstreams, with dependencies, ownership by role, go/no-go gates, and the smallest safe first production scope.\n15. A risk register listing likelihood, impact, mitigation, and a measurable trigger for each major risk.\n16. A final architecture decision record summarizing the chosen approach, rejected alternatives, and consequences.\n\nBe precise about delivery semantics and do not use vague claims such as exactly-once processing without defining the scope and mechanism. Explicitly separate facts supplied above from assumptions you introduce. Keep the document detailed enough for implementation review while prioritizing the highest-risk decisions over generic background explanation."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "b8a06f35-ec82-4f52-b555-67e02821f370",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.7",
      "settings": {
        "thinkingLevel": "high"
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Act as the principal engineer responsible for resolving a recurring payment-integrity incident at Northstar Billing, a multi-tenant subscription platform. Produce a technical remediation plan that engineering, SRE, security, finance operations, and support can approve and execute.\n\nCURRENT SYSTEM\n- A Go API receives Stripe, Adyen, and PayPal webhooks through an AWS Application Load Balancer.\n- API instances validate provider signatures, translate payloads into an internal event shape, publish to an Amazon SNS standard topic, and immediately return HTTP 200.\n- SNS fans out to SQS standard queues for Ledger, Entitlements, Email, and Analytics services.\n- Ledger workers write to PostgreSQL 15. Entitlements workers update DynamoDB. Each service retries independently.\n- The internal event currently contains provider, provider event ID, tenant ID, event type, payment ID, amount, currency, provider timestamp, and payload.\n- There is no shared idempotency mechanism. Ledger attempts to detect duplicates by querying provider_event_id before inserting, but the check and insert are separate statements.\n- Some tenants use multiple merchant accounts. Provider event IDs are unique only within a merchant account, although merchant account ID is not currently included in the internal event.\n- Deployments run on EKS across three availability zones. PostgreSQL uses RDS Multi-AZ with one writer. Redis exists but is configured as a non-durable cache and must not be the source of truth.\n\nINCIDENT EVIDENCE\n- During a 47-minute SNS delivery degradation, retry bursts produced 18,420 duplicate deliveries from 6,130 distinct provider events.\n- 286 duplicate ledger entries were created. Of these, 41 triggered duplicate customer credits and 17 triggered duplicate entitlement extensions.\n- Two legitimate recurring-payment events were incorrectly suppressed because different merchant accounts emitted the same provider event ID.\n- Duplicate deliveries can arrive concurrently, minutes later, or up to seven days later after manual replay.\n- Events from a single payment can arrive out of order; for example, payment.refunded may be observed before payment.captured.\n- Finance requires an immutable record of every received delivery, including duplicates, signature result, original receipt time, and processing outcome.\n- Security prohibits storing full raw webhook payloads when they contain unnecessary personal data. Required financial records must remain available for seven years; operational delivery metadata may be archived after 90 days.\n\nBUSINESS AND DELIVERY CONSTRAINTS\n- Sustained traffic is 2,000 webhook deliveries per second, with bursts to 10,000 per second for five minutes.\n- Added webhook-ingress latency must remain below 80 ms at p99.\n- No more than five minutes of planned write unavailability is acceptable.\n- The migration must not pause webhook intake or require coordinated deployment of every consumer.\n- Existing consumers cannot all be changed immediately. Ledger and Entitlements can be modified in the first release; Email and Analytics will migrate later.\n- At-least-once transport is acceptable. Do not claim exactly-once delivery. The required outcome is effectively-once execution of each business effect.\n- PostgreSQL remains the ledger system of record. You may introduce additional AWS managed services only when justified.\n- The first production release must be achievable by six engineers within eight weeks.\n- Assume provider signatures are already implemented correctly; signature redesign is out of scope.\n\nREQUIRED DELIVERABLE\nWrite a self-contained engineering design document in Markdown. Use concrete decisions rather than presenting an unranked menu of options. Include:\n\n1. Executive summary and explicit success criteria.\n2. Failure analysis explaining the race condition, collision domain, retry behavior, out-of-order events, and why SNS/SQS FIFO alone would not solve the complete problem.\n3. The proposed target architecture from ingress through durable receipt, publication, consumption, business-effect execution, replay, and audit. Clearly identify every transactional boundary and source of truth.\n4. A canonical event envelope with field names, types, required/optional status, and semantics. Define a collision-safe idempotency key that accounts for provider and merchant account scope. Explain handling for providers that do not supply a stable event ID.\n5. PostgreSQL table designs for the immutable delivery journal, canonical events, processing attempts, and business-effect idempotency records. Provide representative PostgreSQL DDL, including primary keys, unique constraints, indexes, partitioning or retention strategy, and only the most important columns.\n6. Transaction pseudocode for both Ledger and Entitlements consumers. Show how concurrent duplicate deliveries are resolved atomically, how failures are retried safely, and how a claimed operation is recovered if a worker dies. Address the fact that DynamoDB cannot participate in the PostgreSQL transaction.\n7. A state-machine strategy for out-of-order payment lifecycle events. Distinguish transport deduplication from business-state transition validation, including how refunds observed before captures are handled without silently losing either event.\n8. Capacity reasoning using the supplied sustained and burst rates. Estimate daily delivery volume, propose partition sizing and hot-path indexes, identify likely bottlenecks, and state which assumptions require load testing. Approximate calculations are sufficient but must be shown.\n9. A zero-intake-downtime migration plan with phases, dual-write or shadow-validation behavior, backward compatibility for unmigrated consumers, backfill strategy, rollback criteria, and safeguards against creating effects twice during rollback.\n10. An observability plan with specific metrics, structured-log fields, traces, dashboards, and alert thresholds. Include detection of duplicates prevented, key collisions, invalid transitions, stuck work, replay activity, journal lag, and reconciliation mismatches.\n11. A reconciliation and repair procedure finance operations can run. Explain how it compares provider records, the delivery journal, canonical events, and ledger effects without automatically issuing money-moving corrections.\n12. A security, privacy, and retention section covering payload minimization, encryption, tenant isolation, privileged replay controls, seven-year financial retention, and archival or deletion of operational data.\n13. A focused test strategy covering concurrency, crash recovery, delayed duplicates, event-ID collisions across merchant accounts, out-of-order events, partial downstream failure, replay, migration compatibility, and burst load.\n14. An eight-week implementation sequence divided into workstreams, with dependencies, ownership by role, go/no-go gates, and the smallest safe first production scope.\n15. A risk register listing likelihood, impact, mitigation, and a measurable trigger for each major risk.\n16. A final architecture decision record summarizing the chosen approach, rejected alternatives, and consequences.\n\nBe precise about delivery semantics and do not use vague claims such as exactly-once processing without defining the scope and mechanism. Explicitly separate facts supplied above from assumptions you introduce. Keep the document detailed enough for implementation review while prioritizing the highest-risk decisions over generic background explanation."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@opus-4.7 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=high \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Act as the principal engineer responsible for resolving a recurring payment-integrity incident at Northstar Billing, a multi-tenant subscription platform. Produce a technical remediation plan that engineering, SRE, security, finance operations, and support can approve and execute.

CURRENT SYSTEM
- A Go API receives Stripe, Adyen, and PayPal webhooks through an AWS Application Load Balancer.
- API instances validate provider signatures, translate payloads into an internal event shape, publish to an Amazon SNS standard topic, and immediately return HTTP 200.
- SNS fans out to SQS standard queues for Ledger, Entitlements, Email, and Analytics services.
- Ledger workers write to PostgreSQL 15. Entitlements workers update DynamoDB. Each service retries independently.
- The internal event currently contains provider, provider event ID, tenant ID, event type, payment ID, amount, currency, provider timestamp, and payload.
- There is no shared idempotency mechanism. Ledger attempts to detect duplicates by querying provider_event_id before inserting, but the check and insert are separate statements.
- Some tenants use multiple merchant accounts. Provider event IDs are unique only within a merchant account, although merchant account ID is not currently included in the internal event.
- Deployments run on EKS across three availability zones. PostgreSQL uses RDS Multi-AZ with one writer. Redis exists but is configured as a non-durable cache and must not be the source of truth.

INCIDENT EVIDENCE
- During a 47-minute SNS delivery degradation, retry bursts produced 18,420 duplicate deliveries from 6,130 distinct provider events.
- 286 duplicate ledger entries were created. Of these, 41 triggered duplicate customer credits and 17 triggered duplicate entitlement extensions.
- Two legitimate recurring-payment events were incorrectly suppressed because different merchant accounts emitted the same provider event ID.
- Duplicate deliveries can arrive concurrently, minutes later, or up to seven days later after manual replay.
- Events from a single payment can arrive out of order; for example, payment.refunded may be observed before payment.captured.
- Finance requires an immutable record of every received delivery, including duplicates, signature result, original receipt time, and processing outcome.
- Security prohibits storing full raw webhook payloads when they contain unnecessary personal data. Required financial records must remain available for seven years; operational delivery metadata may be archived after 90 days.

BUSINESS AND DELIVERY CONSTRAINTS
- Sustained traffic is 2,000 webhook deliveries per second, with bursts to 10,000 per second for five minutes.
- Added webhook-ingress latency must remain below 80 ms at p99.
- No more than five minutes of planned write unavailability is acceptable.
- The migration must not pause webhook intake or require coordinated deployment of every consumer.
- Existing consumers cannot all be changed immediately. Ledger and Entitlements can be modified in the first release; Email and Analytics will migrate later.
- At-least-once transport is acceptable. Do not claim exactly-once delivery. The required outcome is effectively-once execution of each business effect.
- PostgreSQL remains the ledger system of record. You may introduce additional AWS managed services only when justified.
- The first production release must be achievable by six engineers within eight weeks.
- Assume provider signatures are already implemented correctly; signature redesign is out of scope.

REQUIRED DELIVERABLE
Write a self-contained engineering design document in Markdown. Use concrete decisions rather than presenting an unranked menu of options. Include:

1. Executive summary and explicit success criteria.
2. Failure analysis explaining the race condition, collision domain, retry behavior, out-of-order events, and why SNS/SQS FIFO alone would not solve the complete problem.
3. The proposed target architecture from ingress through durable receipt, publication, consumption, business-effect execution, replay, and audit. Clearly identify every transactional boundary and source of truth.
4. A canonical event envelope with field names, types, required/optional status, and semantics. Define a collision-safe idempotency key that accounts for provider and merchant account scope. Explain handling for providers that do not supply a stable event ID.
5. PostgreSQL table designs for the immutable delivery journal, canonical events, processing attempts, and business-effect idempotency records. Provide representative PostgreSQL DDL, including primary keys, unique constraints, indexes, partitioning or retention strategy, and only the most important columns.
6. Transaction pseudocode for both Ledger and Entitlements consumers. Show how concurrent duplicate deliveries are resolved atomically, how failures are retried safely, and how a claimed operation is recovered if a worker dies. Address the fact that DynamoDB cannot participate in the PostgreSQL transaction.
7. A state-machine strategy for out-of-order payment lifecycle events. Distinguish transport deduplication from business-state transition validation, including how refunds observed before captures are handled without silently losing either event.
8. Capacity reasoning using the supplied sustained and burst rates. Estimate daily delivery volume, propose partition sizing and hot-path indexes, identify likely bottlenecks, and state which assumptions require load testing. Approximate calculations are sufficient but must be shown.
9. A zero-intake-downtime migration plan with phases, dual-write or shadow-validation behavior, backward compatibility for unmigrated consumers, backfill strategy, rollback criteria, and safeguards against creating effects twice during rollback.
10. An observability plan with specific metrics, structured-log fields, traces, dashboards, and alert thresholds. Include detection of duplicates prevented, key collisions, invalid transitions, stuck work, replay activity, journal lag, and reconciliation mismatches.
11. A reconciliation and repair procedure finance operations can run. Explain how it compares provider records, the delivery journal, canonical events, and ledger effects without automatically issuing money-moving corrections.
12. A security, privacy, and retention section covering payload minimization, encryption, tenant isolation, privileged replay controls, seven-year financial retention, and archival or deletion of operational data.
13. A focused test strategy covering concurrency, crash recovery, delayed duplicates, event-ID collisions across merchant accounts, out-of-order events, partial downstream failure, replay, migration compatibility, and burst load.
14. An eight-week implementation sequence divided into workstreams, with dependencies, ownership by role, go/no-go gates, and the smallest safe first production scope.
15. A risk register listing likelihood, impact, mitigation, and a measurable trigger for each major risk.
16. A final architecture decision record summarizing the chosen approach, rejected alternatives, and consequences.

Be precise about delivery semantics and do not use vague claims such as exactly-once processing without defining the scope and mechanism. Explicitly separate facts supplied above from assumptions you introduce. Keep the document detailed enough for implementation review while prioritizing the highest-risk decisions over generic background explanation."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "b8a06f35-ec82-4f52-b555-67e02821f370",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.7",
  "settings": {
    "thinkingLevel": "high"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Act as the principal engineer responsible for resolving a recurring payment-integrity incident at Northstar Billing, a multi-tenant subscription platform. Produce a technical remediation plan that engineering, SRE, security, finance operations, and support can approve and execute.\n\nCURRENT SYSTEM\n- A Go API receives Stripe, Adyen, and PayPal webhooks through an AWS Application Load Balancer.\n- API instances validate provider signatures, translate payloads into an internal event shape, publish to an Amazon SNS standard topic, and immediately return HTTP 200.\n- SNS fans out to SQS standard queues for Ledger, Entitlements, Email, and Analytics services.\n- Ledger workers write to PostgreSQL 15. Entitlements workers update DynamoDB. Each service retries independently.\n- The internal event currently contains provider, provider event ID, tenant ID, event type, payment ID, amount, currency, provider timestamp, and payload.\n- There is no shared idempotency mechanism. Ledger attempts to detect duplicates by querying provider_event_id before inserting, but the check and insert are separate statements.\n- Some tenants use multiple merchant accounts. Provider event IDs are unique only within a merchant account, although merchant account ID is not currently included in the internal event.\n- Deployments run on EKS across three availability zones. PostgreSQL uses RDS Multi-AZ with one writer. Redis exists but is configured as a non-durable cache and must not be the source of truth.\n\nINCIDENT EVIDENCE\n- During a 47-minute SNS delivery degradation, retry bursts produced 18,420 duplicate deliveries from 6,130 distinct provider events.\n- 286 duplicate ledger entries were created. Of these, 41 triggered duplicate customer credits and 17 triggered duplicate entitlement extensions.\n- Two legitimate recurring-payment events were incorrectly suppressed because different merchant accounts emitted the same provider event ID.\n- Duplicate deliveries can arrive concurrently, minutes later, or up to seven days later after manual replay.\n- Events from a single payment can arrive out of order; for example, payment.refunded may be observed before payment.captured.\n- Finance requires an immutable record of every received delivery, including duplicates, signature result, original receipt time, and processing outcome.\n- Security prohibits storing full raw webhook payloads when they contain unnecessary personal data. Required financial records must remain available for seven years; operational delivery metadata may be archived after 90 days.\n\nBUSINESS AND DELIVERY CONSTRAINTS\n- Sustained traffic is 2,000 webhook deliveries per second, with bursts to 10,000 per second for five minutes.\n- Added webhook-ingress latency must remain below 80 ms at p99.\n- No more than five minutes of planned write unavailability is acceptable.\n- The migration must not pause webhook intake or require coordinated deployment of every consumer.\n- Existing consumers cannot all be changed immediately. Ledger and Entitlements can be modified in the first release; Email and Analytics will migrate later.\n- At-least-once transport is acceptable. Do not claim exactly-once delivery. The required outcome is effectively-once execution of each business effect.\n- PostgreSQL remains the ledger system of record. You may introduce additional AWS managed services only when justified.\n- The first production release must be achievable by six engineers within eight weeks.\n- Assume provider signatures are already implemented correctly; signature redesign is out of scope.\n\nREQUIRED DELIVERABLE\nWrite a self-contained engineering design document in Markdown. Use concrete decisions rather than presenting an unranked menu of options. Include:\n\n1. Executive summary and explicit success criteria.\n2. Failure analysis explaining the race condition, collision domain, retry behavior, out-of-order events, and why SNS/SQS FIFO alone would not solve the complete problem.\n3. The proposed target architecture from ingress through durable receipt, publication, consumption, business-effect execution, replay, and audit. Clearly identify every transactional boundary and source of truth.\n4. A canonical event envelope with field names, types, required/optional status, and semantics. Define a collision-safe idempotency key that accounts for provider and merchant account scope. Explain handling for providers that do not supply a stable event ID.\n5. PostgreSQL table designs for the immutable delivery journal, canonical events, processing attempts, and business-effect idempotency records. Provide representative PostgreSQL DDL, including primary keys, unique constraints, indexes, partitioning or retention strategy, and only the most important columns.\n6. Transaction pseudocode for both Ledger and Entitlements consumers. Show how concurrent duplicate deliveries are resolved atomically, how failures are retried safely, and how a claimed operation is recovered if a worker dies. Address the fact that DynamoDB cannot participate in the PostgreSQL transaction.\n7. A state-machine strategy for out-of-order payment lifecycle events. Distinguish transport deduplication from business-state transition validation, including how refunds observed before captures are handled without silently losing either event.\n8. Capacity reasoning using the supplied sustained and burst rates. Estimate daily delivery volume, propose partition sizing and hot-path indexes, identify likely bottlenecks, and state which assumptions require load testing. Approximate calculations are sufficient but must be shown.\n9. A zero-intake-downtime migration plan with phases, dual-write or shadow-validation behavior, backward compatibility for unmigrated consumers, backfill strategy, rollback criteria, and safeguards against creating effects twice during rollback.\n10. An observability plan with specific metrics, structured-log fields, traces, dashboards, and alert thresholds. Include detection of duplicates prevented, key collisions, invalid transitions, stuck work, replay activity, journal lag, and reconciliation mismatches.\n11. A reconciliation and repair procedure finance operations can run. Explain how it compares provider records, the delivery journal, canonical events, and ledger effects without automatically issuing money-moving corrections.\n12. A security, privacy, and retention section covering payload minimization, encryption, tenant isolation, privileged replay controls, seven-year financial retention, and archival or deletion of operational data.\n13. A focused test strategy covering concurrency, crash recovery, delayed duplicates, event-ID collisions across merchant accounts, out-of-order events, partial downstream failure, replay, migration compatibility, and burst load.\n14. An eight-week implementation sequence divided into workstreams, with dependencies, ownership by role, go/no-go gates, and the smallest safe first production scope.\n15. A risk register listing likelihood, impact, mitigation, and a measurable trigger for each major risk.\n16. A final architecture decision record summarizing the chosen approach, rejected alternatives, and consequences.\n\nBe precise about delivery semantics and do not use vague claims such as exactly-once processing without defining the scope and mechanism. Explicitly separate facts supplied above from assumptions you introduce. Keep the document detailed enough for implementation review while prioritizing the highest-risk decisions over generic background explanation."
    }
  ]
}