Claude Opus 4.8

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-4.8',
  settings: {
    thinkingLevel: 'medium',
    maxTokens: 3000
  },
  inputs: {
    images: [
      'https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/6ea66b95-27dd-4258-97d3-7f0753b208f5.jpg'
    ]
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Act as a senior sponsorship measurement analyst. Examine the attached marathon finish-line photograph and produce a detailed visual proof-of-performance audit for the event organizer.\n\nBase every finding strictly on visible evidence in the image. Do not guess obscured wording or invent brands. If a logo or name cannot be read confidently, identify it by location and visual characteristics, such as “blue circular mark on the right barrier.”\n\nDeliver:\n1. An executive summary of the sponsorship environment and the three strongest and three weakest placements.\n2. A placement inventory table with one row per distinct sponsor asset or repeated asset system. Include: visible sponsor name or neutral identifier; asset type; image location; approximate share of frame; viewing angle; legibility; obstruction level; contrast against surroundings; proximity to athletes and finish-line action; repetition count; and an overall visibility score from 1–10.\n3. A separate analysis of the finish gantry, barrier wraps, feather flags, athlete apparel or bib exposure, hydration-area branding, and any background signage actually visible.\n4. Evidence-based interpretation of likely photographic value: which placements would remain recognizable in press crops, vertical social crops, and tight athlete-finish crops. Explain what visible composition supports each judgment.\n5. Conflicts and dilution, including overlapping assets, visual clutter, competing colors, blocked sightlines, glare, folds, poor orientation, or crowd interference.\n6. Five prioritized recommendations for the next event, each tied to a specific observed issue and written as an actionable production change.\n7. A concise appendix separating confirmed readable text, partially readable text, and unidentified marks.\n\nUse precise spatial references and clearly distinguish direct observation from interpretation. Note any limitation caused by this being a single still image.'
    }
  ]
})

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-4.8",
            "settings": {
                "thinkingLevel": "medium",
                "maxTokens": 3000
            },
            "inputs": {
                "images": [
                    "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/6ea66b95-27dd-4258-97d3-7f0753b208f5.jpg"
                ]
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Act as a senior sponsorship measurement analyst. Examine the attached marathon finish-line photograph and produce a detailed visual proof-of-performance audit for the event organizer.\n\nBase every finding strictly on visible evidence in the image. Do not guess obscured wording or invent brands. If a logo or name cannot be read confidently, identify it by location and visual characteristics, such as “blue circular mark on the right barrier.”\n\nDeliver:\n1. An executive summary of the sponsorship environment and the three strongest and three weakest placements.\n2. A placement inventory table with one row per distinct sponsor asset or repeated asset system. Include: visible sponsor name or neutral identifier; asset type; image location; approximate share of frame; viewing angle; legibility; obstruction level; contrast against surroundings; proximity to athletes and finish-line action; repetition count; and an overall visibility score from 1–10.\n3. A separate analysis of the finish gantry, barrier wraps, feather flags, athlete apparel or bib exposure, hydration-area branding, and any background signage actually visible.\n4. Evidence-based interpretation of likely photographic value: which placements would remain recognizable in press crops, vertical social crops, and tight athlete-finish crops. Explain what visible composition supports each judgment.\n5. Conflicts and dilution, including overlapping assets, visual clutter, competing colors, blocked sightlines, glare, folds, poor orientation, or crowd interference.\n6. Five prioritized recommendations for the next event, each tied to a specific observed issue and written as an actionable production change.\n7. A concise appendix separating confirmed readable text, partially readable text, and unidentified marks.\n\nUse precise spatial references and clearly distinguish direct observation from interpretation. Note any limitation caused by this being a single still image."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "ee16dde5-060b-49ed-b700-c9cb8e9033c8",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.8",
      "settings": {
        "thinkingLevel": "medium",
        "maxTokens": 3000
      },
      "inputs": {
        "images": [
          "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/6ea66b95-27dd-4258-97d3-7f0753b208f5.jpg"
        ]
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Act as a senior sponsorship measurement analyst. Examine the attached marathon finish-line photograph and produce a detailed visual proof-of-performance audit for the event organizer.\n\nBase every finding strictly on visible evidence in the image. Do not guess obscured wording or invent brands. If a logo or name cannot be read confidently, identify it by location and visual characteristics, such as “blue circular mark on the right barrier.”\n\nDeliver:\n1. An executive summary of the sponsorship environment and the three strongest and three weakest placements.\n2. A placement inventory table with one row per distinct sponsor asset or repeated asset system. Include: visible sponsor name or neutral identifier; asset type; image location; approximate share of frame; viewing angle; legibility; obstruction level; contrast against surroundings; proximity to athletes and finish-line action; repetition count; and an overall visibility score from 1–10.\n3. A separate analysis of the finish gantry, barrier wraps, feather flags, athlete apparel or bib exposure, hydration-area branding, and any background signage actually visible.\n4. Evidence-based interpretation of likely photographic value: which placements would remain recognizable in press crops, vertical social crops, and tight athlete-finish crops. Explain what visible composition supports each judgment.\n5. Conflicts and dilution, including overlapping assets, visual clutter, competing colors, blocked sightlines, glare, folds, poor orientation, or crowd interference.\n6. Five prioritized recommendations for the next event, each tied to a specific observed issue and written as an actionable production change.\n7. A concise appendix separating confirmed readable text, partially readable text, and unidentified marks.\n\nUse precise spatial references and clearly distinguish direct observation from interpretation. Note any limitation caused by this being a single still image."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@opus-4.8 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=medium \
  settings.maxTokens=3000 \
  inputs.images.0=https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/6ea66b95-27dd-4258-97d3-7f0753b208f5.jpg \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Act as a senior sponsorship measurement analyst. Examine the attached marathon finish-line photograph and produce a detailed visual proof-of-performance audit for the event organizer.

Base every finding strictly on visible evidence in the image. Do not guess obscured wording or invent brands. If a logo or name cannot be read confidently, identify it by location and visual characteristics, such as “blue circular mark on the right barrier.”

Deliver:
1. An executive summary of the sponsorship environment and the three strongest and three weakest placements.
2. A placement inventory table with one row per distinct sponsor asset or repeated asset system. Include: visible sponsor name or neutral identifier; asset type; image location; approximate share of frame; viewing angle; legibility; obstruction level; contrast against surroundings; proximity to athletes and finish-line action; repetition count; and an overall visibility score from 1–10.
3. A separate analysis of the finish gantry, barrier wraps, feather flags, athlete apparel or bib exposure, hydration-area branding, and any background signage actually visible.
4. Evidence-based interpretation of likely photographic value: which placements would remain recognizable in press crops, vertical social crops, and tight athlete-finish crops. Explain what visible composition supports each judgment.
5. Conflicts and dilution, including overlapping assets, visual clutter, competing colors, blocked sightlines, glare, folds, poor orientation, or crowd interference.
6. Five prioritized recommendations for the next event, each tied to a specific observed issue and written as an actionable production change.
7. A concise appendix separating confirmed readable text, partially readable text, and unidentified marks.

Use precise spatial references and clearly distinguish direct observation from interpretation. Note any limitation caused by this being a single still image."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "ee16dde5-060b-49ed-b700-c9cb8e9033c8",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.8",
  "settings": {
    "thinkingLevel": "medium",
    "maxTokens": 3000
  },
  "inputs": {
    "images": [
      "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/6ea66b95-27dd-4258-97d3-7f0753b208f5.jpg"
    ]
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Act as a senior sponsorship measurement analyst. Examine the attached marathon finish-line photograph and produce a detailed visual proof-of-performance audit for the event organizer.\n\nBase every finding strictly on visible evidence in the image. Do not guess obscured wording or invent brands. If a logo or name cannot be read confidently, identify it by location and visual characteristics, such as “blue circular mark on the right barrier.”\n\nDeliver:\n1. An executive summary of the sponsorship environment and the three strongest and three weakest placements.\n2. A placement inventory table with one row per distinct sponsor asset or repeated asset system. Include: visible sponsor name or neutral identifier; asset type; image location; approximate share of frame; viewing angle; legibility; obstruction level; contrast against surroundings; proximity to athletes and finish-line action; repetition count; and an overall visibility score from 1–10.\n3. A separate analysis of the finish gantry, barrier wraps, feather flags, athlete apparel or bib exposure, hydration-area branding, and any background signage actually visible.\n4. Evidence-based interpretation of likely photographic value: which placements would remain recognizable in press crops, vertical social crops, and tight athlete-finish crops. Explain what visible composition supports each judgment.\n5. Conflicts and dilution, including overlapping assets, visual clutter, competing colors, blocked sightlines, glare, folds, poor orientation, or crowd interference.\n6. Five prioritized recommendations for the next event, each tied to a specific observed issue and written as an actionable production change.\n7. A concise appendix separating confirmed readable text, partially readable text, and unidentified marks.\n\nUse precise spatial references and clearly distinguish direct observation from interpretation. Note any limitation caused by this being a single still image."
    }
  ]
}

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-4.8',
  settings: {
    systemPrompt: 'You are a senior infrastructure operations analyst. Read visual material carefully, separate direct evidence from inference, and produce concise professional deliverables with clear uncertainty labels.',
    maxTokens: 8192,
    thinkingLevel: 'xhigh'
  },
  inputs: {
    images: [
      'https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/3060f017-7e78-4548-89c5-07d22e674435.jpg'
    ]
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Analyze the provided canal lock operations schematic. Produce: 1) a plain-language summary of what the system controls, 2) a table of every visible pump, gate, sensor, valve, and power feed with any readable IDs or labels, 3) a dependency map in bullet form, 4) all handwritten note conflicts or ambiguities, 5) the most likely failure sequence if Pump P-3 loses power while Gate B is closed, and 6) a prioritized operator checklist for the next 30 minutes. Mark any uncertain reading as UNCERTAIN rather than guessing.'
    }
  ]
})

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-4.8",
            "settings": {
                "systemPrompt": "You are a senior infrastructure operations analyst. Read visual material carefully, separate direct evidence from inference, and produce concise professional deliverables with clear uncertainty labels.",
                "maxTokens": 8192,
                "thinkingLevel": "xhigh"
            },
            "inputs": {
                "images": [
                    "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/3060f017-7e78-4548-89c5-07d22e674435.jpg"
                ]
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Analyze the provided canal lock operations schematic. Produce: 1) a plain-language summary of what the system controls, 2) a table of every visible pump, gate, sensor, valve, and power feed with any readable IDs or labels, 3) a dependency map in bullet form, 4) all handwritten note conflicts or ambiguities, 5) the most likely failure sequence if Pump P-3 loses power while Gate B is closed, and 6) a prioritized operator checklist for the next 30 minutes. Mark any uncertain reading as UNCERTAIN rather than guessing."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "cc722e95-d860-49c7-9eb2-703de8b803d0",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.8",
      "settings": {
        "systemPrompt": "You are a senior infrastructure operations analyst. Read visual material carefully, separate direct evidence from inference, and produce concise professional deliverables with clear uncertainty labels.",
        "maxTokens": 8192,
        "thinkingLevel": "xhigh"
      },
      "inputs": {
        "images": [
          "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/3060f017-7e78-4548-89c5-07d22e674435.jpg"
        ]
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Analyze the provided canal lock operations schematic. Produce: 1) a plain-language summary of what the system controls, 2) a table of every visible pump, gate, sensor, valve, and power feed with any readable IDs or labels, 3) a dependency map in bullet form, 4) all handwritten note conflicts or ambiguities, 5) the most likely failure sequence if Pump P-3 loses power while Gate B is closed, and 6) a prioritized operator checklist for the next 30 minutes. Mark any uncertain reading as UNCERTAIN rather than guessing."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@opus-4.8 \
  settings.systemPrompt="You are a senior infrastructure operations analyst. Read visual material carefully, separate direct evidence from inference, and produce concise professional deliverables with clear uncertainty labels." \
  settings.maxTokens=8192 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=xhigh \
  inputs.images.0=https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/3060f017-7e78-4548-89c5-07d22e674435.jpg \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Analyze the provided canal lock operations schematic. Produce: 1) a plain-language summary of what the system controls, 2) a table of every visible pump, gate, sensor, valve, and power feed with any readable IDs or labels, 3) a dependency map in bullet form, 4) all handwritten note conflicts or ambiguities, 5) the most likely failure sequence if Pump P-3 loses power while Gate B is closed, and 6) a prioritized operator checklist for the next 30 minutes. Mark any uncertain reading as UNCERTAIN rather than guessing."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "cc722e95-d860-49c7-9eb2-703de8b803d0",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.8",
  "settings": {
    "systemPrompt": "You are a senior infrastructure operations analyst. Read visual material carefully, separate direct evidence from inference, and produce concise professional deliverables with clear uncertainty labels.",
    "maxTokens": 8192,
    "thinkingLevel": "xhigh"
  },
  "inputs": {
    "images": [
      "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/3060f017-7e78-4548-89c5-07d22e674435.jpg"
    ]
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Analyze the provided canal lock operations schematic. Produce: 1) a plain-language summary of what the system controls, 2) a table of every visible pump, gate, sensor, valve, and power feed with any readable IDs or labels, 3) a dependency map in bullet form, 4) all handwritten note conflicts or ambiguities, 5) the most likely failure sequence if Pump P-3 loses power while Gate B is closed, and 6) a prioritized operator checklist for the next 30 minutes. Mark any uncertain reading as UNCERTAIN rather than guessing."
    }
  ]
}

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-4.8',
  settings: {
    systemPrompt: 'You are Claude Opus 4.8 acting as a senior AI engineering lead and incident commander. Deliver rigorous, audit-ready analysis with concise reasoning summaries, concrete code, and tradeoff notes. Do not reveal private chain-of-thought; provide decisions, evidence, and justification.',
    maxTokens: 8192,
    thinkingLevel: 'adaptive',
    cache: {
      scope: 'system+history',
      ttl: '1h'
    }
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Analyze this fictional production incident packet for HelioLift, an alpine medical drone dispatch network migrating from a mutable PostgreSQL event table to an append-only ledger. Produce: 1) executive summary, 2) likely root cause, 3) immediate containment, 4) durable fix, 5) TypeScript patch, 6) SQL migration notes, 7) Python validator for replay safety, 8) test matrix, 9) privacy and safety risk register, and 10) a 72-hour execution plan.\n\nIncident packet:\n- Symptom: 3.7% of medication drop missions in Zone A12 received duplicate dispatch confirmations, but only 0.4% launched twice. No patient harm, but the regulator requires a written report.\n- Change window: ledger writer enabled for 25% of dispatch traffic at 02:10 UTC.\n- Old invariant: one row per patient_hash and seq in dispatch_events.\n- New invariant: append all state changes to dispatch_ledger, derive current state from replay.\n- Operational constraint: do not pause emergency missions.\n\nRelevant schema:\n```sql\nCREATE TABLE dispatch_events (\n  patient_hash TEXT NOT NULL,\n  seq BIGINT NOT NULL,\n  event_kind TEXT NOT NULL,\n  payload JSONB NOT NULL,\n  created_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT now(),\n  PRIMARY KEY (patient_hash, seq)\n);\n\nCREATE TABLE dispatch_ledger (\n  ledger_id UUID PRIMARY KEY,\n  patient_hash TEXT NOT NULL,\n  seq BIGINT NOT NULL,\n  event_kind TEXT NOT NULL,\n  payload JSONB NOT NULL,\n  idempotency_key TEXT NOT NULL,\n  writer_node TEXT NOT NULL,\n  created_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT now()\n);\n\nCREATE INDEX dispatch_ledger_patient_seq_idx\nON dispatch_ledger(patient_hash, seq);\n```\n\nCurrent TypeScript writer:\n```ts\ntype DispatchEvent = {\n  patientHash: string;\n  seq: number;\n  kind: \'REQUESTED\' | \'CONFIRMED\' | \'LAUNCHED\' | \'CANCELLED\';\n  payload: Record<string, unknown>;\n};\n\nexport async function writeDispatchEvent(event: DispatchEvent, ctx: Ctx) {\n  const key = `${event.patientHash}:${Date.now()}`;\n  const lastSeq = await ctx.redis.get(`last:${event.patientHash}`);\n\n  if (lastSeq && event.seq <= Number(lastSeq)) {\n    ctx.logger.info({ event }, \'stale event ignored\');\n    return { written: false };\n  }\n\n  await ctx.pg.query(\'BEGIN\');\n  await ctx.pg.query(\n    `INSERT INTO dispatch_ledger\n     (ledger_id, patient_hash, seq, event_kind, payload, idempotency_key, writer_node)\n     VALUES (gen_random_uuid(), $1, $2, $3, $4, $5, $6)`,\n    [event.patientHash, event.seq, event.kind, event.payload, key, ctx.nodeId]\n  );\n  await ctx.redis.set(`last:${event.patientHash}`, String(event.seq), { EX: 600 });\n  await ctx.pg.query(\'COMMIT\');\n  return { written: true };\n}\n```\n\nObserved logs:\n```text\n02:13:41.102 node=aurora-7 patient=91f seq=44 kind=CONFIRMED key=91f:1716171221102\n02:13:41.188 node=aurora-2 patient=91f seq=44 kind=CONFIRMED key=91f:1716171221188\n02:13:41.204 node=aurora-7 patient=91f seq=45 kind=LAUNCHED key=91f:1716171221204\n02:13:41.231 node=aurora-2 patient=91f seq=45 kind=LAUNCHED key=91f:1716171221231\n02:14:06.009 node=aurora-4 redis_timeout patient=91f op=get_last_seq\n02:14:06.032 node=aurora-4 pg_commit_ok patient=91f seq=44 kind=CONFIRMED\n```\n\nAdditional facts:\n- Redis has intermittent 200-900 ms latency spikes in Zone A12.\n- Writer nodes use synchronized NTP with max drift below 20 ms.\n- Downstream launch service deduplicates LAUNCHED by patient_hash and seq, but notification service deduplicates by idempotency_key.\n- Compliance asks whether patient_hash alone is sufficient for pseudonymization.\n- Leadership wants a safe rollout path to 100% ledger traffic within one week.\n\nRespond in a professional incident-review format with concrete implementation details.'
    }
  ]
})

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-4.8",
            "settings": {
                "systemPrompt": "You are Claude Opus 4.8 acting as a senior AI engineering lead and incident commander. Deliver rigorous, audit-ready analysis with concise reasoning summaries, concrete code, and tradeoff notes. Do not reveal private chain-of-thought; provide decisions, evidence, and justification.",
                "maxTokens": 8192,
                "thinkingLevel": "adaptive",
                "cache": {
                    "scope": "system+history",
                    "ttl": "1h"
                }
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Analyze this fictional production incident packet for HelioLift, an alpine medical drone dispatch network migrating from a mutable PostgreSQL event table to an append-only ledger. Produce: 1) executive summary, 2) likely root cause, 3) immediate containment, 4) durable fix, 5) TypeScript patch, 6) SQL migration notes, 7) Python validator for replay safety, 8) test matrix, 9) privacy and safety risk register, and 10) a 72-hour execution plan.\n\nIncident packet:\n- Symptom: 3.7% of medication drop missions in Zone A12 received duplicate dispatch confirmations, but only 0.4% launched twice. No patient harm, but the regulator requires a written report.\n- Change window: ledger writer enabled for 25% of dispatch traffic at 02:10 UTC.\n- Old invariant: one row per patient_hash and seq in dispatch_events.\n- New invariant: append all state changes to dispatch_ledger, derive current state from replay.\n- Operational constraint: do not pause emergency missions.\n\nRelevant schema:\n```sql\nCREATE TABLE dispatch_events (\n  patient_hash TEXT NOT NULL,\n  seq BIGINT NOT NULL,\n  event_kind TEXT NOT NULL,\n  payload JSONB NOT NULL,\n  created_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT now(),\n  PRIMARY KEY (patient_hash, seq)\n);\n\nCREATE TABLE dispatch_ledger (\n  ledger_id UUID PRIMARY KEY,\n  patient_hash TEXT NOT NULL,\n  seq BIGINT NOT NULL,\n  event_kind TEXT NOT NULL,\n  payload JSONB NOT NULL,\n  idempotency_key TEXT NOT NULL,\n  writer_node TEXT NOT NULL,\n  created_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT now()\n);\n\nCREATE INDEX dispatch_ledger_patient_seq_idx\nON dispatch_ledger(patient_hash, seq);\n```\n\nCurrent TypeScript writer:\n```ts\ntype DispatchEvent = {\n  patientHash: string;\n  seq: number;\n  kind: 'REQUESTED' | 'CONFIRMED' | 'LAUNCHED' | 'CANCELLED';\n  payload: Record<string, unknown>;\n};\n\nexport async function writeDispatchEvent(event: DispatchEvent, ctx: Ctx) {\n  const key = `${event.patientHash}:${Date.now()}`;\n  const lastSeq = await ctx.redis.get(`last:${event.patientHash}`);\n\n  if (lastSeq && event.seq <= Number(lastSeq)) {\n    ctx.logger.info({ event }, 'stale event ignored');\n    return { written: false };\n  }\n\n  await ctx.pg.query('BEGIN');\n  await ctx.pg.query(\n    `INSERT INTO dispatch_ledger\n     (ledger_id, patient_hash, seq, event_kind, payload, idempotency_key, writer_node)\n     VALUES (gen_random_uuid(), $1, $2, $3, $4, $5, $6)`,\n    [event.patientHash, event.seq, event.kind, event.payload, key, ctx.nodeId]\n  );\n  await ctx.redis.set(`last:${event.patientHash}`, String(event.seq), { EX: 600 });\n  await ctx.pg.query('COMMIT');\n  return { written: true };\n}\n```\n\nObserved logs:\n```text\n02:13:41.102 node=aurora-7 patient=91f seq=44 kind=CONFIRMED key=91f:1716171221102\n02:13:41.188 node=aurora-2 patient=91f seq=44 kind=CONFIRMED key=91f:1716171221188\n02:13:41.204 node=aurora-7 patient=91f seq=45 kind=LAUNCHED key=91f:1716171221204\n02:13:41.231 node=aurora-2 patient=91f seq=45 kind=LAUNCHED key=91f:1716171221231\n02:14:06.009 node=aurora-4 redis_timeout patient=91f op=get_last_seq\n02:14:06.032 node=aurora-4 pg_commit_ok patient=91f seq=44 kind=CONFIRMED\n```\n\nAdditional facts:\n- Redis has intermittent 200-900 ms latency spikes in Zone A12.\n- Writer nodes use synchronized NTP with max drift below 20 ms.\n- Downstream launch service deduplicates LAUNCHED by patient_hash and seq, but notification service deduplicates by idempotency_key.\n- Compliance asks whether patient_hash alone is sufficient for pseudonymization.\n- Leadership wants a safe rollout path to 100% ledger traffic within one week.\n\nRespond in a professional incident-review format with concrete implementation details."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "ef46b9c0-b5cd-46ba-97c7-06612302e13a",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.8",
      "settings": {
        "systemPrompt": "You are Claude Opus 4.8 acting as a senior AI engineering lead and incident commander. Deliver rigorous, audit-ready analysis with concise reasoning summaries, concrete code, and tradeoff notes. Do not reveal private chain-of-thought; provide decisions, evidence, and justification.",
        "maxTokens": 8192,
        "thinkingLevel": "adaptive",
        "cache": {
          "scope": "system+history",
          "ttl": "1h"
        }
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Analyze this fictional production incident packet for HelioLift, an alpine medical drone dispatch network migrating from a mutable PostgreSQL event table to an append-only ledger. Produce: 1) executive summary, 2) likely root cause, 3) immediate containment, 4) durable fix, 5) TypeScript patch, 6) SQL migration notes, 7) Python validator for replay safety, 8) test matrix, 9) privacy and safety risk register, and 10) a 72-hour execution plan.\n\nIncident packet:\n- Symptom: 3.7% of medication drop missions in Zone A12 received duplicate dispatch confirmations, but only 0.4% launched twice. No patient harm, but the regulator requires a written report.\n- Change window: ledger writer enabled for 25% of dispatch traffic at 02:10 UTC.\n- Old invariant: one row per patient_hash and seq in dispatch_events.\n- New invariant: append all state changes to dispatch_ledger, derive current state from replay.\n- Operational constraint: do not pause emergency missions.\n\nRelevant schema:\n```sql\nCREATE TABLE dispatch_events (\n  patient_hash TEXT NOT NULL,\n  seq BIGINT NOT NULL,\n  event_kind TEXT NOT NULL,\n  payload JSONB NOT NULL,\n  created_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT now(),\n  PRIMARY KEY (patient_hash, seq)\n);\n\nCREATE TABLE dispatch_ledger (\n  ledger_id UUID PRIMARY KEY,\n  patient_hash TEXT NOT NULL,\n  seq BIGINT NOT NULL,\n  event_kind TEXT NOT NULL,\n  payload JSONB NOT NULL,\n  idempotency_key TEXT NOT NULL,\n  writer_node TEXT NOT NULL,\n  created_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT now()\n);\n\nCREATE INDEX dispatch_ledger_patient_seq_idx\nON dispatch_ledger(patient_hash, seq);\n```\n\nCurrent TypeScript writer:\n```ts\ntype DispatchEvent = {\n  patientHash: string;\n  seq: number;\n  kind: 'REQUESTED' | 'CONFIRMED' | 'LAUNCHED' | 'CANCELLED';\n  payload: Record<string, unknown>;\n};\n\nexport async function writeDispatchEvent(event: DispatchEvent, ctx: Ctx) {\n  const key = `${event.patientHash}:${Date.now()}`;\n  const lastSeq = await ctx.redis.get(`last:${event.patientHash}`);\n\n  if (lastSeq && event.seq <= Number(lastSeq)) {\n    ctx.logger.info({ event }, 'stale event ignored');\n    return { written: false };\n  }\n\n  await ctx.pg.query('BEGIN');\n  await ctx.pg.query(\n    `INSERT INTO dispatch_ledger\n     (ledger_id, patient_hash, seq, event_kind, payload, idempotency_key, writer_node)\n     VALUES (gen_random_uuid(), $1, $2, $3, $4, $5, $6)`,\n    [event.patientHash, event.seq, event.kind, event.payload, key, ctx.nodeId]\n  );\n  await ctx.redis.set(`last:${event.patientHash}`, String(event.seq), { EX: 600 });\n  await ctx.pg.query('COMMIT');\n  return { written: true };\n}\n```\n\nObserved logs:\n```text\n02:13:41.102 node=aurora-7 patient=91f seq=44 kind=CONFIRMED key=91f:1716171221102\n02:13:41.188 node=aurora-2 patient=91f seq=44 kind=CONFIRMED key=91f:1716171221188\n02:13:41.204 node=aurora-7 patient=91f seq=45 kind=LAUNCHED key=91f:1716171221204\n02:13:41.231 node=aurora-2 patient=91f seq=45 kind=LAUNCHED key=91f:1716171221231\n02:14:06.009 node=aurora-4 redis_timeout patient=91f op=get_last_seq\n02:14:06.032 node=aurora-4 pg_commit_ok patient=91f seq=44 kind=CONFIRMED\n```\n\nAdditional facts:\n- Redis has intermittent 200-900 ms latency spikes in Zone A12.\n- Writer nodes use synchronized NTP with max drift below 20 ms.\n- Downstream launch service deduplicates LAUNCHED by patient_hash and seq, but notification service deduplicates by idempotency_key.\n- Compliance asks whether patient_hash alone is sufficient for pseudonymization.\n- Leadership wants a safe rollout path to 100% ledger traffic within one week.\n\nRespond in a professional incident-review format with concrete implementation details."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@opus-4.8 \
  settings.systemPrompt="You are Claude Opus 4.8 acting as a senior AI engineering lead and incident commander. Deliver rigorous, audit-ready analysis with concise reasoning summaries, concrete code, and tradeoff notes. Do not reveal private chain-of-thought; provide decisions, evidence, and justification." \
  settings.maxTokens=8192 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=adaptive \
  settings.cache.scope=system+history \
  settings.cache.ttl=1h \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Analyze this fictional production incident packet for HelioLift, an alpine medical drone dispatch network migrating from a mutable PostgreSQL event table to an append-only ledger. Produce: 1) executive summary, 2) likely root cause, 3) immediate containment, 4) durable fix, 5) TypeScript patch, 6) SQL migration notes, 7) Python validator for replay safety, 8) test matrix, 9) privacy and safety risk register, and 10) a 72-hour execution plan.

Incident packet:
- Symptom: 3.7% of medication drop missions in Zone A12 received duplicate dispatch confirmations, but only 0.4% launched twice. No patient harm, but the regulator requires a written report.
- Change window: ledger writer enabled for 25% of dispatch traffic at 02:10 UTC.
- Old invariant: one row per patient_hash and seq in dispatch_events.
- New invariant: append all state changes to dispatch_ledger, derive current state from replay.
- Operational constraint: do not pause emergency missions.

Relevant schema:
\`\`\`sql
CREATE TABLE dispatch_events (
  patient_hash TEXT NOT NULL,
  seq BIGINT NOT NULL,
  event_kind TEXT NOT NULL,
  payload JSONB NOT NULL,
  created_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT now(),
  PRIMARY KEY (patient_hash, seq)
);

CREATE TABLE dispatch_ledger (
  ledger_id UUID PRIMARY KEY,
  patient_hash TEXT NOT NULL,
  seq BIGINT NOT NULL,
  event_kind TEXT NOT NULL,
  payload JSONB NOT NULL,
  idempotency_key TEXT NOT NULL,
  writer_node TEXT NOT NULL,
  created_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT now()
);

CREATE INDEX dispatch_ledger_patient_seq_idx
ON dispatch_ledger(patient_hash, seq);
\`\`\`

Current TypeScript writer:
\`\`\`ts
type DispatchEvent = {
  patientHash: string;
  seq: number;
  kind: 'REQUESTED' | 'CONFIRMED' | 'LAUNCHED' | 'CANCELLED';
  payload: Record<string, unknown>;
};

export async function writeDispatchEvent(event: DispatchEvent, ctx: Ctx) {
  const key = \`\${event.patientHash}:\${Date.now()}\`;
  const lastSeq = await ctx.redis.get(\`last:\${event.patientHash}\`);

  if (lastSeq && event.seq <= Number(lastSeq)) {
    ctx.logger.info({ event }, 'stale event ignored');
    return { written: false };
  }

  await ctx.pg.query('BEGIN');
  await ctx.pg.query(
    \`INSERT INTO dispatch_ledger
     (ledger_id, patient_hash, seq, event_kind, payload, idempotency_key, writer_node)
     VALUES (gen_random_uuid(), \$1, \$2, \$3, \$4, \$5, \$6)\`,
    [event.patientHash, event.seq, event.kind, event.payload, key, ctx.nodeId]
  );
  await ctx.redis.set(\`last:\${event.patientHash}\`, String(event.seq), { EX: 600 });
  await ctx.pg.query('COMMIT');
  return { written: true };
}
\`\`\`

Observed logs:
\`\`\`text
02:13:41.102 node=aurora-7 patient=91f seq=44 kind=CONFIRMED key=91f:1716171221102
02:13:41.188 node=aurora-2 patient=91f seq=44 kind=CONFIRMED key=91f:1716171221188
02:13:41.204 node=aurora-7 patient=91f seq=45 kind=LAUNCHED key=91f:1716171221204
02:13:41.231 node=aurora-2 patient=91f seq=45 kind=LAUNCHED key=91f:1716171221231
02:14:06.009 node=aurora-4 redis_timeout patient=91f op=get_last_seq
02:14:06.032 node=aurora-4 pg_commit_ok patient=91f seq=44 kind=CONFIRMED
\`\`\`

Additional facts:
- Redis has intermittent 200-900 ms latency spikes in Zone A12.
- Writer nodes use synchronized NTP with max drift below 20 ms.
- Downstream launch service deduplicates LAUNCHED by patient_hash and seq, but notification service deduplicates by idempotency_key.
- Compliance asks whether patient_hash alone is sufficient for pseudonymization.
- Leadership wants a safe rollout path to 100% ledger traffic within one week.

Respond in a professional incident-review format with concrete implementation details."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "ef46b9c0-b5cd-46ba-97c7-06612302e13a",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.8",
  "settings": {
    "systemPrompt": "You are Claude Opus 4.8 acting as a senior AI engineering lead and incident commander. Deliver rigorous, audit-ready analysis with concise reasoning summaries, concrete code, and tradeoff notes. Do not reveal private chain-of-thought; provide decisions, evidence, and justification.",
    "maxTokens": 8192,
    "thinkingLevel": "adaptive",
    "cache": {
      "scope": "system+history",
      "ttl": "1h"
    }
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Analyze this fictional production incident packet for HelioLift, an alpine medical drone dispatch network migrating from a mutable PostgreSQL event table to an append-only ledger. Produce: 1) executive summary, 2) likely root cause, 3) immediate containment, 4) durable fix, 5) TypeScript patch, 6) SQL migration notes, 7) Python validator for replay safety, 8) test matrix, 9) privacy and safety risk register, and 10) a 72-hour execution plan.\n\nIncident packet:\n- Symptom: 3.7% of medication drop missions in Zone A12 received duplicate dispatch confirmations, but only 0.4% launched twice. No patient harm, but the regulator requires a written report.\n- Change window: ledger writer enabled for 25% of dispatch traffic at 02:10 UTC.\n- Old invariant: one row per patient_hash and seq in dispatch_events.\n- New invariant: append all state changes to dispatch_ledger, derive current state from replay.\n- Operational constraint: do not pause emergency missions.\n\nRelevant schema:\n```sql\nCREATE TABLE dispatch_events (\n  patient_hash TEXT NOT NULL,\n  seq BIGINT NOT NULL,\n  event_kind TEXT NOT NULL,\n  payload JSONB NOT NULL,\n  created_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT now(),\n  PRIMARY KEY (patient_hash, seq)\n);\n\nCREATE TABLE dispatch_ledger (\n  ledger_id UUID PRIMARY KEY,\n  patient_hash TEXT NOT NULL,\n  seq BIGINT NOT NULL,\n  event_kind TEXT NOT NULL,\n  payload JSONB NOT NULL,\n  idempotency_key TEXT NOT NULL,\n  writer_node TEXT NOT NULL,\n  created_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT now()\n);\n\nCREATE INDEX dispatch_ledger_patient_seq_idx\nON dispatch_ledger(patient_hash, seq);\n```\n\nCurrent TypeScript writer:\n```ts\ntype DispatchEvent = {\n  patientHash: string;\n  seq: number;\n  kind: 'REQUESTED' | 'CONFIRMED' | 'LAUNCHED' | 'CANCELLED';\n  payload: Record<string, unknown>;\n};\n\nexport async function writeDispatchEvent(event: DispatchEvent, ctx: Ctx) {\n  const key = `${event.patientHash}:${Date.now()}`;\n  const lastSeq = await ctx.redis.get(`last:${event.patientHash}`);\n\n  if (lastSeq && event.seq <= Number(lastSeq)) {\n    ctx.logger.info({ event }, 'stale event ignored');\n    return { written: false };\n  }\n\n  await ctx.pg.query('BEGIN');\n  await ctx.pg.query(\n    `INSERT INTO dispatch_ledger\n     (ledger_id, patient_hash, seq, event_kind, payload, idempotency_key, writer_node)\n     VALUES (gen_random_uuid(), $1, $2, $3, $4, $5, $6)`,\n    [event.patientHash, event.seq, event.kind, event.payload, key, ctx.nodeId]\n  );\n  await ctx.redis.set(`last:${event.patientHash}`, String(event.seq), { EX: 600 });\n  await ctx.pg.query('COMMIT');\n  return { written: true };\n}\n```\n\nObserved logs:\n```text\n02:13:41.102 node=aurora-7 patient=91f seq=44 kind=CONFIRMED key=91f:1716171221102\n02:13:41.188 node=aurora-2 patient=91f seq=44 kind=CONFIRMED key=91f:1716171221188\n02:13:41.204 node=aurora-7 patient=91f seq=45 kind=LAUNCHED key=91f:1716171221204\n02:13:41.231 node=aurora-2 patient=91f seq=45 kind=LAUNCHED key=91f:1716171221231\n02:14:06.009 node=aurora-4 redis_timeout patient=91f op=get_last_seq\n02:14:06.032 node=aurora-4 pg_commit_ok patient=91f seq=44 kind=CONFIRMED\n```\n\nAdditional facts:\n- Redis has intermittent 200-900 ms latency spikes in Zone A12.\n- Writer nodes use synchronized NTP with max drift below 20 ms.\n- Downstream launch service deduplicates LAUNCHED by patient_hash and seq, but notification service deduplicates by idempotency_key.\n- Compliance asks whether patient_hash alone is sufficient for pseudonymization.\n- Leadership wants a safe rollout path to 100% ledger traffic within one week.\n\nRespond in a professional incident-review format with concrete implementation details."
    }
  ]
}

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-4.8',
  settings: {
    thinkingLevel: 'high',
    maxTokens: 6000
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'You are the senior development executive at an independent European production company. Prepare polished, decision-grade script coverage for the fictional feature project below. The report will be circulated to the head of film, a prospective lead producer, and the company’s financing team.\n\nPROJECT\nTitle: LOW WATER\nFormat: Feature film, 108 pages\nGenre: Historical drama with restrained mystery elements\nSetting: Rural Wales, summer 1976\nTarget production model: UK–European co-production, £4–6 million budget\nIntended positioning: Prestige adult drama with festival-launch potential and a viable supporting life on specialty theatrical and streaming platforms\n\nLOGLINE SUBMITTED BY THE WRITER\nDuring the 1976 drought, a reservoir recedes to expose the remains of a village flooded decades earlier, forcing a widowed civil engineer to confront the disappearance of her younger sister and the compromise on which her career was built.\n\nSYNOPSIS\nEleanor Vale, 48, is the regional engineer responsible for the Celyn Vale reservoir. Precise, private, and respected in a profession dominated by men, she has spent twenty years defending the dam as necessary infrastructure. Her husband died six months ago, but Eleanor refuses compassionate leave and remains alone in their austere company house.\n\nAn exceptional drought lowers the reservoir. Rooflines from the abandoned village of Penrhos emerge from the mud, drawing former residents, reporters, and sightseers. Among the returnees is Owen Pritchard, 55, a schoolteacher and Eleanor’s childhood friend. Owen resents the authority that displaced their families and suspects the official record concealed what happened during the village’s final evacuation.\n\nEleanor’s younger sister, Mari, disappeared at age seventeen on the night before the valley was flooded. The accepted explanation was that Mari ran away after quarreling with their father. No body was found. Eleanor left soon afterward to study engineering and eventually joined the same water authority that built the reservoir.\n\nWhen a child finds Mari’s distinctive silver locket in the exposed schoolhouse, Owen presses Eleanor to reopen the past. Eleanor dismisses the discovery as inconclusive. Privately, she retrieves archived construction logs and discovers that the final inundation began nine hours earlier than the public timetable stated. The authorization bears the initials of chief engineer Arthur Bell, Eleanor’s late mentor.\n\nFlashbacks gradually reveal that Mari had discovered unstable ground beneath the planned eastern embankment. She stole survey sheets from the site office, intending to give them to a journalist. Eleanor, then a junior draftsman desperate to secure Bell’s recommendation for university, told Bell where Mari was hiding. Eleanor believed he would retrieve the documents and frighten Mari into silence.\n\nIn the present, a fissure appears near the exposed chapel. Eleanor orders the public removed, citing safety concerns. Owen accuses her of engineering another cover-up. Their conflict culminates when he reveals that Mari had planned to leave the valley with him, not alone. He has kept one of her letters for twenty years because it implicates Eleanor without explaining Mari’s fate.\n\nEleanor enters the exposed village at night and finds a collapsed culvert beside the old site office. Inside is Mari’s bicycle, but no remains. Bell’s private field notebook, sealed in a rusted survey case, records that he confronted Mari, seized the plans, and left her injured after she fell. He then ordered early flooding to prevent a search of the unstable area. The notebook also shows that Bell quietly redesigned the embankment using Mari’s evidence, meaning the reservoir’s safety rests partly on the warning she tried to expose.\n\nThe water authority’s chairman urges Eleanor to suppress the notebook. Public disclosure could trigger criminal scrutiny, compensation claims, and doubts about the reservoir during a national water shortage. He also points out that Eleanor enabled Bell by revealing Mari’s location.\n\nEleanor gives the notebook and construction logs to a local reporter. She resigns and publicly admits her role. Police excavate the culvert, but rising rainwater interrupts the search before any remains are found. Owen considers Eleanor’s confession incomplete because she still describes herself as naïve rather than ambitious.\n\nIn the final sequence, heavy rain refills the reservoir. Eleanor prepares to leave the company house. Owen brings her Mari’s unopened final letter, which was addressed to Eleanor rather than to him. Eleanor reads it alone. The audience does not hear the full text; only the opening is shown: “You always said water remembers the shape of what it covers.” Eleanor drives away as Penrhos disappears again beneath the surface.\n\nSELECTED EXECUTION NOTES\n• The screenplay alternates between 1976 and 1956, withholding the fact that Eleanor informed Bell until page 82.\n• Young Eleanor appears in eight flashback sequences. Mari appears in six and is characterized as charismatic, politically alert, and impulsive.\n• Owen functions as investigator, former romantic possibility, and moral challenger. His decision to withhold Mari’s letter is revealed on page 94.\n• Bell appears only in flashbacks and has approximately twelve pages of screen time.\n• The chairman appears in three present-day scenes and is not personally connected to the original flooding.\n• The first 25 pages emphasize atmosphere, drought, and Eleanor’s work routines. Mari’s locket is found on page 27.\n• The film contains no explicit supernatural event, though several images suggest that the submerged village is “returning.”\n• The current draft ends without confirming whether Mari’s remains are in the culvert.\n• The writer imagines minimal score, natural light, wide static compositions, and a muted palette that shifts from dust and ochre to slate and deep green.\n\nKNOWN PRODUCER CONCERNS\n1. The protagonist may remain emotionally inaccessible for too long.\n2. The mystery mechanics could create an expectation of a conventional crime resolution that the ending intentionally refuses.\n3. Owen’s concealment of the letter may feel engineered to preserve suspense.\n4. Mari risks functioning mainly as a symbol or plot device.\n5. The chairman’s pressure scene may reduce an institutional story to a single convenient antagonist.\n6. The flashback structure may inflate the budget without always increasing dramatic tension.\n7. The unresolved ending is thematically coherent but may frustrate buyers and preview audiences.\n\nDELIVERABLE\nWrite a complete professional coverage report using the following sections:\n\n1. Recommendation: PASS, CONSIDER, or RECOMMEND, with separate recommendations for the script and the writer.\n2. Executive Take: 250–350 words giving a candid acquisition-level assessment. State what the film is, what distinguishes it, what currently prevents a stronger recommendation, and the most plausible market position. Do not use inflated praise or generic phrases such as “a compelling journey.”\n3. Story and Structure: Analyze the reveal architecture, pacing, dual timeline, causality, and ending. Distinguish productive ambiguity from missing payoff.\n4. Character Analysis: Address Eleanor, Mari, Owen, Bell, and the chairman. Pay particular attention to agency, moral complexity, and whether the audience can emotionally track Eleanor without prematurely absolving her.\n5. Theme and Tone: Evaluate how infrastructure, memory, complicity, public necessity, and private grief interact. Identify any places where symbolism risks becoming overdetermined.\n6. Production and Market Assessment: Discuss likely budget pressures, casting opportunities, location and weather dependencies, period requirements, audience, comparable films, festival prospects, and commercial limitations. Use comparables for positioning rather than claiming equivalent box office. Do not invent sales figures.\n7. Priority Rewrite Plan: Give five ranked notes. For each, include the underlying problem, a specific revision strategy, the likely benefit, and one risk or tradeoff. The notes must work together as a coherent next-draft strategy rather than as isolated ideas.\n8. Ending Options: Propose three distinct endings: one preserving the current ambiguity, one offering partial physical resolution, and one providing full resolution. Explain the thematic and market tradeoffs of each, then recommend one.\n9. Revised Logline: Maximum 35 words.\n10. Development Meeting Questions: Eight precise questions for the writer that could materially affect the next draft.\n11. Scorecard: Rate Premise, Plot, Character, Dialogue Potential, Theme, Visual Potential, Production Feasibility, and Marketability from 1–10, with a one-sentence rationale for each.\n\nWrite with the concise, specific tone of an experienced development executive. Treat the project seriously, challenge weak logic, and avoid rewriting it into a thriller. Where the supplied material does not permit a firm conclusion—particularly dialogue quality—say so directly rather than inventing evidence.'
    }
  ]
})

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-4.8",
            "settings": {
                "thinkingLevel": "high",
                "maxTokens": 6000
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "You are the senior development executive at an independent European production company. Prepare polished, decision-grade script coverage for the fictional feature project below. The report will be circulated to the head of film, a prospective lead producer, and the company’s financing team.\n\nPROJECT\nTitle: LOW WATER\nFormat: Feature film, 108 pages\nGenre: Historical drama with restrained mystery elements\nSetting: Rural Wales, summer 1976\nTarget production model: UK–European co-production, £4–6 million budget\nIntended positioning: Prestige adult drama with festival-launch potential and a viable supporting life on specialty theatrical and streaming platforms\n\nLOGLINE SUBMITTED BY THE WRITER\nDuring the 1976 drought, a reservoir recedes to expose the remains of a village flooded decades earlier, forcing a widowed civil engineer to confront the disappearance of her younger sister and the compromise on which her career was built.\n\nSYNOPSIS\nEleanor Vale, 48, is the regional engineer responsible for the Celyn Vale reservoir. Precise, private, and respected in a profession dominated by men, she has spent twenty years defending the dam as necessary infrastructure. Her husband died six months ago, but Eleanor refuses compassionate leave and remains alone in their austere company house.\n\nAn exceptional drought lowers the reservoir. Rooflines from the abandoned village of Penrhos emerge from the mud, drawing former residents, reporters, and sightseers. Among the returnees is Owen Pritchard, 55, a schoolteacher and Eleanor’s childhood friend. Owen resents the authority that displaced their families and suspects the official record concealed what happened during the village’s final evacuation.\n\nEleanor’s younger sister, Mari, disappeared at age seventeen on the night before the valley was flooded. The accepted explanation was that Mari ran away after quarreling with their father. No body was found. Eleanor left soon afterward to study engineering and eventually joined the same water authority that built the reservoir.\n\nWhen a child finds Mari’s distinctive silver locket in the exposed schoolhouse, Owen presses Eleanor to reopen the past. Eleanor dismisses the discovery as inconclusive. Privately, she retrieves archived construction logs and discovers that the final inundation began nine hours earlier than the public timetable stated. The authorization bears the initials of chief engineer Arthur Bell, Eleanor’s late mentor.\n\nFlashbacks gradually reveal that Mari had discovered unstable ground beneath the planned eastern embankment. She stole survey sheets from the site office, intending to give them to a journalist. Eleanor, then a junior draftsman desperate to secure Bell’s recommendation for university, told Bell where Mari was hiding. Eleanor believed he would retrieve the documents and frighten Mari into silence.\n\nIn the present, a fissure appears near the exposed chapel. Eleanor orders the public removed, citing safety concerns. Owen accuses her of engineering another cover-up. Their conflict culminates when he reveals that Mari had planned to leave the valley with him, not alone. He has kept one of her letters for twenty years because it implicates Eleanor without explaining Mari’s fate.\n\nEleanor enters the exposed village at night and finds a collapsed culvert beside the old site office. Inside is Mari’s bicycle, but no remains. Bell’s private field notebook, sealed in a rusted survey case, records that he confronted Mari, seized the plans, and left her injured after she fell. He then ordered early flooding to prevent a search of the unstable area. The notebook also shows that Bell quietly redesigned the embankment using Mari’s evidence, meaning the reservoir’s safety rests partly on the warning she tried to expose.\n\nThe water authority’s chairman urges Eleanor to suppress the notebook. Public disclosure could trigger criminal scrutiny, compensation claims, and doubts about the reservoir during a national water shortage. He also points out that Eleanor enabled Bell by revealing Mari’s location.\n\nEleanor gives the notebook and construction logs to a local reporter. She resigns and publicly admits her role. Police excavate the culvert, but rising rainwater interrupts the search before any remains are found. Owen considers Eleanor’s confession incomplete because she still describes herself as naïve rather than ambitious.\n\nIn the final sequence, heavy rain refills the reservoir. Eleanor prepares to leave the company house. Owen brings her Mari’s unopened final letter, which was addressed to Eleanor rather than to him. Eleanor reads it alone. The audience does not hear the full text; only the opening is shown: “You always said water remembers the shape of what it covers.” Eleanor drives away as Penrhos disappears again beneath the surface.\n\nSELECTED EXECUTION NOTES\n• The screenplay alternates between 1976 and 1956, withholding the fact that Eleanor informed Bell until page 82.\n• Young Eleanor appears in eight flashback sequences. Mari appears in six and is characterized as charismatic, politically alert, and impulsive.\n• Owen functions as investigator, former romantic possibility, and moral challenger. His decision to withhold Mari’s letter is revealed on page 94.\n• Bell appears only in flashbacks and has approximately twelve pages of screen time.\n• The chairman appears in three present-day scenes and is not personally connected to the original flooding.\n• The first 25 pages emphasize atmosphere, drought, and Eleanor’s work routines. Mari’s locket is found on page 27.\n• The film contains no explicit supernatural event, though several images suggest that the submerged village is “returning.”\n• The current draft ends without confirming whether Mari’s remains are in the culvert.\n• The writer imagines minimal score, natural light, wide static compositions, and a muted palette that shifts from dust and ochre to slate and deep green.\n\nKNOWN PRODUCER CONCERNS\n1. The protagonist may remain emotionally inaccessible for too long.\n2. The mystery mechanics could create an expectation of a conventional crime resolution that the ending intentionally refuses.\n3. Owen’s concealment of the letter may feel engineered to preserve suspense.\n4. Mari risks functioning mainly as a symbol or plot device.\n5. The chairman’s pressure scene may reduce an institutional story to a single convenient antagonist.\n6. The flashback structure may inflate the budget without always increasing dramatic tension.\n7. The unresolved ending is thematically coherent but may frustrate buyers and preview audiences.\n\nDELIVERABLE\nWrite a complete professional coverage report using the following sections:\n\n1. Recommendation: PASS, CONSIDER, or RECOMMEND, with separate recommendations for the script and the writer.\n2. Executive Take: 250–350 words giving a candid acquisition-level assessment. State what the film is, what distinguishes it, what currently prevents a stronger recommendation, and the most plausible market position. Do not use inflated praise or generic phrases such as “a compelling journey.”\n3. Story and Structure: Analyze the reveal architecture, pacing, dual timeline, causality, and ending. Distinguish productive ambiguity from missing payoff.\n4. Character Analysis: Address Eleanor, Mari, Owen, Bell, and the chairman. Pay particular attention to agency, moral complexity, and whether the audience can emotionally track Eleanor without prematurely absolving her.\n5. Theme and Tone: Evaluate how infrastructure, memory, complicity, public necessity, and private grief interact. Identify any places where symbolism risks becoming overdetermined.\n6. Production and Market Assessment: Discuss likely budget pressures, casting opportunities, location and weather dependencies, period requirements, audience, comparable films, festival prospects, and commercial limitations. Use comparables for positioning rather than claiming equivalent box office. Do not invent sales figures.\n7. Priority Rewrite Plan: Give five ranked notes. For each, include the underlying problem, a specific revision strategy, the likely benefit, and one risk or tradeoff. The notes must work together as a coherent next-draft strategy rather than as isolated ideas.\n8. Ending Options: Propose three distinct endings: one preserving the current ambiguity, one offering partial physical resolution, and one providing full resolution. Explain the thematic and market tradeoffs of each, then recommend one.\n9. Revised Logline: Maximum 35 words.\n10. Development Meeting Questions: Eight precise questions for the writer that could materially affect the next draft.\n11. Scorecard: Rate Premise, Plot, Character, Dialogue Potential, Theme, Visual Potential, Production Feasibility, and Marketability from 1–10, with a one-sentence rationale for each.\n\nWrite with the concise, specific tone of an experienced development executive. Treat the project seriously, challenge weak logic, and avoid rewriting it into a thriller. Where the supplied material does not permit a firm conclusion—particularly dialogue quality—say so directly rather than inventing evidence."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "0c68e829-8ca3-4141-9f91-e04e699091eb",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.8",
      "settings": {
        "thinkingLevel": "high",
        "maxTokens": 6000
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "You are the senior development executive at an independent European production company. Prepare polished, decision-grade script coverage for the fictional feature project below. The report will be circulated to the head of film, a prospective lead producer, and the company’s financing team.\n\nPROJECT\nTitle: LOW WATER\nFormat: Feature film, 108 pages\nGenre: Historical drama with restrained mystery elements\nSetting: Rural Wales, summer 1976\nTarget production model: UK–European co-production, £4–6 million budget\nIntended positioning: Prestige adult drama with festival-launch potential and a viable supporting life on specialty theatrical and streaming platforms\n\nLOGLINE SUBMITTED BY THE WRITER\nDuring the 1976 drought, a reservoir recedes to expose the remains of a village flooded decades earlier, forcing a widowed civil engineer to confront the disappearance of her younger sister and the compromise on which her career was built.\n\nSYNOPSIS\nEleanor Vale, 48, is the regional engineer responsible for the Celyn Vale reservoir. Precise, private, and respected in a profession dominated by men, she has spent twenty years defending the dam as necessary infrastructure. Her husband died six months ago, but Eleanor refuses compassionate leave and remains alone in their austere company house.\n\nAn exceptional drought lowers the reservoir. Rooflines from the abandoned village of Penrhos emerge from the mud, drawing former residents, reporters, and sightseers. Among the returnees is Owen Pritchard, 55, a schoolteacher and Eleanor’s childhood friend. Owen resents the authority that displaced their families and suspects the official record concealed what happened during the village’s final evacuation.\n\nEleanor’s younger sister, Mari, disappeared at age seventeen on the night before the valley was flooded. The accepted explanation was that Mari ran away after quarreling with their father. No body was found. Eleanor left soon afterward to study engineering and eventually joined the same water authority that built the reservoir.\n\nWhen a child finds Mari’s distinctive silver locket in the exposed schoolhouse, Owen presses Eleanor to reopen the past. Eleanor dismisses the discovery as inconclusive. Privately, she retrieves archived construction logs and discovers that the final inundation began nine hours earlier than the public timetable stated. The authorization bears the initials of chief engineer Arthur Bell, Eleanor’s late mentor.\n\nFlashbacks gradually reveal that Mari had discovered unstable ground beneath the planned eastern embankment. She stole survey sheets from the site office, intending to give them to a journalist. Eleanor, then a junior draftsman desperate to secure Bell’s recommendation for university, told Bell where Mari was hiding. Eleanor believed he would retrieve the documents and frighten Mari into silence.\n\nIn the present, a fissure appears near the exposed chapel. Eleanor orders the public removed, citing safety concerns. Owen accuses her of engineering another cover-up. Their conflict culminates when he reveals that Mari had planned to leave the valley with him, not alone. He has kept one of her letters for twenty years because it implicates Eleanor without explaining Mari’s fate.\n\nEleanor enters the exposed village at night and finds a collapsed culvert beside the old site office. Inside is Mari’s bicycle, but no remains. Bell’s private field notebook, sealed in a rusted survey case, records that he confronted Mari, seized the plans, and left her injured after she fell. He then ordered early flooding to prevent a search of the unstable area. The notebook also shows that Bell quietly redesigned the embankment using Mari’s evidence, meaning the reservoir’s safety rests partly on the warning she tried to expose.\n\nThe water authority’s chairman urges Eleanor to suppress the notebook. Public disclosure could trigger criminal scrutiny, compensation claims, and doubts about the reservoir during a national water shortage. He also points out that Eleanor enabled Bell by revealing Mari’s location.\n\nEleanor gives the notebook and construction logs to a local reporter. She resigns and publicly admits her role. Police excavate the culvert, but rising rainwater interrupts the search before any remains are found. Owen considers Eleanor’s confession incomplete because she still describes herself as naïve rather than ambitious.\n\nIn the final sequence, heavy rain refills the reservoir. Eleanor prepares to leave the company house. Owen brings her Mari’s unopened final letter, which was addressed to Eleanor rather than to him. Eleanor reads it alone. The audience does not hear the full text; only the opening is shown: “You always said water remembers the shape of what it covers.” Eleanor drives away as Penrhos disappears again beneath the surface.\n\nSELECTED EXECUTION NOTES\n• The screenplay alternates between 1976 and 1956, withholding the fact that Eleanor informed Bell until page 82.\n• Young Eleanor appears in eight flashback sequences. Mari appears in six and is characterized as charismatic, politically alert, and impulsive.\n• Owen functions as investigator, former romantic possibility, and moral challenger. His decision to withhold Mari’s letter is revealed on page 94.\n• Bell appears only in flashbacks and has approximately twelve pages of screen time.\n• The chairman appears in three present-day scenes and is not personally connected to the original flooding.\n• The first 25 pages emphasize atmosphere, drought, and Eleanor’s work routines. Mari’s locket is found on page 27.\n• The film contains no explicit supernatural event, though several images suggest that the submerged village is “returning.”\n• The current draft ends without confirming whether Mari’s remains are in the culvert.\n• The writer imagines minimal score, natural light, wide static compositions, and a muted palette that shifts from dust and ochre to slate and deep green.\n\nKNOWN PRODUCER CONCERNS\n1. The protagonist may remain emotionally inaccessible for too long.\n2. The mystery mechanics could create an expectation of a conventional crime resolution that the ending intentionally refuses.\n3. Owen’s concealment of the letter may feel engineered to preserve suspense.\n4. Mari risks functioning mainly as a symbol or plot device.\n5. The chairman’s pressure scene may reduce an institutional story to a single convenient antagonist.\n6. The flashback structure may inflate the budget without always increasing dramatic tension.\n7. The unresolved ending is thematically coherent but may frustrate buyers and preview audiences.\n\nDELIVERABLE\nWrite a complete professional coverage report using the following sections:\n\n1. Recommendation: PASS, CONSIDER, or RECOMMEND, with separate recommendations for the script and the writer.\n2. Executive Take: 250–350 words giving a candid acquisition-level assessment. State what the film is, what distinguishes it, what currently prevents a stronger recommendation, and the most plausible market position. Do not use inflated praise or generic phrases such as “a compelling journey.”\n3. Story and Structure: Analyze the reveal architecture, pacing, dual timeline, causality, and ending. Distinguish productive ambiguity from missing payoff.\n4. Character Analysis: Address Eleanor, Mari, Owen, Bell, and the chairman. Pay particular attention to agency, moral complexity, and whether the audience can emotionally track Eleanor without prematurely absolving her.\n5. Theme and Tone: Evaluate how infrastructure, memory, complicity, public necessity, and private grief interact. Identify any places where symbolism risks becoming overdetermined.\n6. Production and Market Assessment: Discuss likely budget pressures, casting opportunities, location and weather dependencies, period requirements, audience, comparable films, festival prospects, and commercial limitations. Use comparables for positioning rather than claiming equivalent box office. Do not invent sales figures.\n7. Priority Rewrite Plan: Give five ranked notes. For each, include the underlying problem, a specific revision strategy, the likely benefit, and one risk or tradeoff. The notes must work together as a coherent next-draft strategy rather than as isolated ideas.\n8. Ending Options: Propose three distinct endings: one preserving the current ambiguity, one offering partial physical resolution, and one providing full resolution. Explain the thematic and market tradeoffs of each, then recommend one.\n9. Revised Logline: Maximum 35 words.\n10. Development Meeting Questions: Eight precise questions for the writer that could materially affect the next draft.\n11. Scorecard: Rate Premise, Plot, Character, Dialogue Potential, Theme, Visual Potential, Production Feasibility, and Marketability from 1–10, with a one-sentence rationale for each.\n\nWrite with the concise, specific tone of an experienced development executive. Treat the project seriously, challenge weak logic, and avoid rewriting it into a thriller. Where the supplied material does not permit a firm conclusion—particularly dialogue quality—say so directly rather than inventing evidence."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@opus-4.8 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=high \
  settings.maxTokens=6000 \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="You are the senior development executive at an independent European production company. Prepare polished, decision-grade script coverage for the fictional feature project below. The report will be circulated to the head of film, a prospective lead producer, and the company’s financing team.

PROJECT
Title: LOW WATER
Format: Feature film, 108 pages
Genre: Historical drama with restrained mystery elements
Setting: Rural Wales, summer 1976
Target production model: UK–European co-production, £4–6 million budget
Intended positioning: Prestige adult drama with festival-launch potential and a viable supporting life on specialty theatrical and streaming platforms

LOGLINE SUBMITTED BY THE WRITER
During the 1976 drought, a reservoir recedes to expose the remains of a village flooded decades earlier, forcing a widowed civil engineer to confront the disappearance of her younger sister and the compromise on which her career was built.

SYNOPSIS
Eleanor Vale, 48, is the regional engineer responsible for the Celyn Vale reservoir. Precise, private, and respected in a profession dominated by men, she has spent twenty years defending the dam as necessary infrastructure. Her husband died six months ago, but Eleanor refuses compassionate leave and remains alone in their austere company house.

An exceptional drought lowers the reservoir. Rooflines from the abandoned village of Penrhos emerge from the mud, drawing former residents, reporters, and sightseers. Among the returnees is Owen Pritchard, 55, a schoolteacher and Eleanor’s childhood friend. Owen resents the authority that displaced their families and suspects the official record concealed what happened during the village’s final evacuation.

Eleanor’s younger sister, Mari, disappeared at age seventeen on the night before the valley was flooded. The accepted explanation was that Mari ran away after quarreling with their father. No body was found. Eleanor left soon afterward to study engineering and eventually joined the same water authority that built the reservoir.

When a child finds Mari’s distinctive silver locket in the exposed schoolhouse, Owen presses Eleanor to reopen the past. Eleanor dismisses the discovery as inconclusive. Privately, she retrieves archived construction logs and discovers that the final inundation began nine hours earlier than the public timetable stated. The authorization bears the initials of chief engineer Arthur Bell, Eleanor’s late mentor.

Flashbacks gradually reveal that Mari had discovered unstable ground beneath the planned eastern embankment. She stole survey sheets from the site office, intending to give them to a journalist. Eleanor, then a junior draftsman desperate to secure Bell’s recommendation for university, told Bell where Mari was hiding. Eleanor believed he would retrieve the documents and frighten Mari into silence.

In the present, a fissure appears near the exposed chapel. Eleanor orders the public removed, citing safety concerns. Owen accuses her of engineering another cover-up. Their conflict culminates when he reveals that Mari had planned to leave the valley with him, not alone. He has kept one of her letters for twenty years because it implicates Eleanor without explaining Mari’s fate.

Eleanor enters the exposed village at night and finds a collapsed culvert beside the old site office. Inside is Mari’s bicycle, but no remains. Bell’s private field notebook, sealed in a rusted survey case, records that he confronted Mari, seized the plans, and left her injured after she fell. He then ordered early flooding to prevent a search of the unstable area. The notebook also shows that Bell quietly redesigned the embankment using Mari’s evidence, meaning the reservoir’s safety rests partly on the warning she tried to expose.

The water authority’s chairman urges Eleanor to suppress the notebook. Public disclosure could trigger criminal scrutiny, compensation claims, and doubts about the reservoir during a national water shortage. He also points out that Eleanor enabled Bell by revealing Mari’s location.

Eleanor gives the notebook and construction logs to a local reporter. She resigns and publicly admits her role. Police excavate the culvert, but rising rainwater interrupts the search before any remains are found. Owen considers Eleanor’s confession incomplete because she still describes herself as naïve rather than ambitious.

In the final sequence, heavy rain refills the reservoir. Eleanor prepares to leave the company house. Owen brings her Mari’s unopened final letter, which was addressed to Eleanor rather than to him. Eleanor reads it alone. The audience does not hear the full text; only the opening is shown: “You always said water remembers the shape of what it covers.” Eleanor drives away as Penrhos disappears again beneath the surface.

SELECTED EXECUTION NOTES
• The screenplay alternates between 1976 and 1956, withholding the fact that Eleanor informed Bell until page 82.
• Young Eleanor appears in eight flashback sequences. Mari appears in six and is characterized as charismatic, politically alert, and impulsive.
• Owen functions as investigator, former romantic possibility, and moral challenger. His decision to withhold Mari’s letter is revealed on page 94.
• Bell appears only in flashbacks and has approximately twelve pages of screen time.
• The chairman appears in three present-day scenes and is not personally connected to the original flooding.
• The first 25 pages emphasize atmosphere, drought, and Eleanor’s work routines. Mari’s locket is found on page 27.
• The film contains no explicit supernatural event, though several images suggest that the submerged village is “returning.”
• The current draft ends without confirming whether Mari’s remains are in the culvert.
• The writer imagines minimal score, natural light, wide static compositions, and a muted palette that shifts from dust and ochre to slate and deep green.

KNOWN PRODUCER CONCERNS
1. The protagonist may remain emotionally inaccessible for too long.
2. The mystery mechanics could create an expectation of a conventional crime resolution that the ending intentionally refuses.
3. Owen’s concealment of the letter may feel engineered to preserve suspense.
4. Mari risks functioning mainly as a symbol or plot device.
5. The chairman’s pressure scene may reduce an institutional story to a single convenient antagonist.
6. The flashback structure may inflate the budget without always increasing dramatic tension.
7. The unresolved ending is thematically coherent but may frustrate buyers and preview audiences.

DELIVERABLE
Write a complete professional coverage report using the following sections:

1. Recommendation: PASS, CONSIDER, or RECOMMEND, with separate recommendations for the script and the writer.
2. Executive Take: 250–350 words giving a candid acquisition-level assessment. State what the film is, what distinguishes it, what currently prevents a stronger recommendation, and the most plausible market position. Do not use inflated praise or generic phrases such as “a compelling journey.”
3. Story and Structure: Analyze the reveal architecture, pacing, dual timeline, causality, and ending. Distinguish productive ambiguity from missing payoff.
4. Character Analysis: Address Eleanor, Mari, Owen, Bell, and the chairman. Pay particular attention to agency, moral complexity, and whether the audience can emotionally track Eleanor without prematurely absolving her.
5. Theme and Tone: Evaluate how infrastructure, memory, complicity, public necessity, and private grief interact. Identify any places where symbolism risks becoming overdetermined.
6. Production and Market Assessment: Discuss likely budget pressures, casting opportunities, location and weather dependencies, period requirements, audience, comparable films, festival prospects, and commercial limitations. Use comparables for positioning rather than claiming equivalent box office. Do not invent sales figures.
7. Priority Rewrite Plan: Give five ranked notes. For each, include the underlying problem, a specific revision strategy, the likely benefit, and one risk or tradeoff. The notes must work together as a coherent next-draft strategy rather than as isolated ideas.
8. Ending Options: Propose three distinct endings: one preserving the current ambiguity, one offering partial physical resolution, and one providing full resolution. Explain the thematic and market tradeoffs of each, then recommend one.
9. Revised Logline: Maximum 35 words.
10. Development Meeting Questions: Eight precise questions for the writer that could materially affect the next draft.
11. Scorecard: Rate Premise, Plot, Character, Dialogue Potential, Theme, Visual Potential, Production Feasibility, and Marketability from 1–10, with a one-sentence rationale for each.

Write with the concise, specific tone of an experienced development executive. Treat the project seriously, challenge weak logic, and avoid rewriting it into a thriller. Where the supplied material does not permit a firm conclusion—particularly dialogue quality—say so directly rather than inventing evidence."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "0c68e829-8ca3-4141-9f91-e04e699091eb",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.8",
  "settings": {
    "thinkingLevel": "high",
    "maxTokens": 6000
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "You are the senior development executive at an independent European production company. Prepare polished, decision-grade script coverage for the fictional feature project below. The report will be circulated to the head of film, a prospective lead producer, and the company’s financing team.\n\nPROJECT\nTitle: LOW WATER\nFormat: Feature film, 108 pages\nGenre: Historical drama with restrained mystery elements\nSetting: Rural Wales, summer 1976\nTarget production model: UK–European co-production, £4–6 million budget\nIntended positioning: Prestige adult drama with festival-launch potential and a viable supporting life on specialty theatrical and streaming platforms\n\nLOGLINE SUBMITTED BY THE WRITER\nDuring the 1976 drought, a reservoir recedes to expose the remains of a village flooded decades earlier, forcing a widowed civil engineer to confront the disappearance of her younger sister and the compromise on which her career was built.\n\nSYNOPSIS\nEleanor Vale, 48, is the regional engineer responsible for the Celyn Vale reservoir. Precise, private, and respected in a profession dominated by men, she has spent twenty years defending the dam as necessary infrastructure. Her husband died six months ago, but Eleanor refuses compassionate leave and remains alone in their austere company house.\n\nAn exceptional drought lowers the reservoir. Rooflines from the abandoned village of Penrhos emerge from the mud, drawing former residents, reporters, and sightseers. Among the returnees is Owen Pritchard, 55, a schoolteacher and Eleanor’s childhood friend. Owen resents the authority that displaced their families and suspects the official record concealed what happened during the village’s final evacuation.\n\nEleanor’s younger sister, Mari, disappeared at age seventeen on the night before the valley was flooded. The accepted explanation was that Mari ran away after quarreling with their father. No body was found. Eleanor left soon afterward to study engineering and eventually joined the same water authority that built the reservoir.\n\nWhen a child finds Mari’s distinctive silver locket in the exposed schoolhouse, Owen presses Eleanor to reopen the past. Eleanor dismisses the discovery as inconclusive. Privately, she retrieves archived construction logs and discovers that the final inundation began nine hours earlier than the public timetable stated. The authorization bears the initials of chief engineer Arthur Bell, Eleanor’s late mentor.\n\nFlashbacks gradually reveal that Mari had discovered unstable ground beneath the planned eastern embankment. She stole survey sheets from the site office, intending to give them to a journalist. Eleanor, then a junior draftsman desperate to secure Bell’s recommendation for university, told Bell where Mari was hiding. Eleanor believed he would retrieve the documents and frighten Mari into silence.\n\nIn the present, a fissure appears near the exposed chapel. Eleanor orders the public removed, citing safety concerns. Owen accuses her of engineering another cover-up. Their conflict culminates when he reveals that Mari had planned to leave the valley with him, not alone. He has kept one of her letters for twenty years because it implicates Eleanor without explaining Mari’s fate.\n\nEleanor enters the exposed village at night and finds a collapsed culvert beside the old site office. Inside is Mari’s bicycle, but no remains. Bell’s private field notebook, sealed in a rusted survey case, records that he confronted Mari, seized the plans, and left her injured after she fell. He then ordered early flooding to prevent a search of the unstable area. The notebook also shows that Bell quietly redesigned the embankment using Mari’s evidence, meaning the reservoir’s safety rests partly on the warning she tried to expose.\n\nThe water authority’s chairman urges Eleanor to suppress the notebook. Public disclosure could trigger criminal scrutiny, compensation claims, and doubts about the reservoir during a national water shortage. He also points out that Eleanor enabled Bell by revealing Mari’s location.\n\nEleanor gives the notebook and construction logs to a local reporter. She resigns and publicly admits her role. Police excavate the culvert, but rising rainwater interrupts the search before any remains are found. Owen considers Eleanor’s confession incomplete because she still describes herself as naïve rather than ambitious.\n\nIn the final sequence, heavy rain refills the reservoir. Eleanor prepares to leave the company house. Owen brings her Mari’s unopened final letter, which was addressed to Eleanor rather than to him. Eleanor reads it alone. The audience does not hear the full text; only the opening is shown: “You always said water remembers the shape of what it covers.” Eleanor drives away as Penrhos disappears again beneath the surface.\n\nSELECTED EXECUTION NOTES\n• The screenplay alternates between 1976 and 1956, withholding the fact that Eleanor informed Bell until page 82.\n• Young Eleanor appears in eight flashback sequences. Mari appears in six and is characterized as charismatic, politically alert, and impulsive.\n• Owen functions as investigator, former romantic possibility, and moral challenger. His decision to withhold Mari’s letter is revealed on page 94.\n• Bell appears only in flashbacks and has approximately twelve pages of screen time.\n• The chairman appears in three present-day scenes and is not personally connected to the original flooding.\n• The first 25 pages emphasize atmosphere, drought, and Eleanor’s work routines. Mari’s locket is found on page 27.\n• The film contains no explicit supernatural event, though several images suggest that the submerged village is “returning.”\n• The current draft ends without confirming whether Mari’s remains are in the culvert.\n• The writer imagines minimal score, natural light, wide static compositions, and a muted palette that shifts from dust and ochre to slate and deep green.\n\nKNOWN PRODUCER CONCERNS\n1. The protagonist may remain emotionally inaccessible for too long.\n2. The mystery mechanics could create an expectation of a conventional crime resolution that the ending intentionally refuses.\n3. Owen’s concealment of the letter may feel engineered to preserve suspense.\n4. Mari risks functioning mainly as a symbol or plot device.\n5. The chairman’s pressure scene may reduce an institutional story to a single convenient antagonist.\n6. The flashback structure may inflate the budget without always increasing dramatic tension.\n7. The unresolved ending is thematically coherent but may frustrate buyers and preview audiences.\n\nDELIVERABLE\nWrite a complete professional coverage report using the following sections:\n\n1. Recommendation: PASS, CONSIDER, or RECOMMEND, with separate recommendations for the script and the writer.\n2. Executive Take: 250–350 words giving a candid acquisition-level assessment. State what the film is, what distinguishes it, what currently prevents a stronger recommendation, and the most plausible market position. Do not use inflated praise or generic phrases such as “a compelling journey.”\n3. Story and Structure: Analyze the reveal architecture, pacing, dual timeline, causality, and ending. Distinguish productive ambiguity from missing payoff.\n4. Character Analysis: Address Eleanor, Mari, Owen, Bell, and the chairman. Pay particular attention to agency, moral complexity, and whether the audience can emotionally track Eleanor without prematurely absolving her.\n5. Theme and Tone: Evaluate how infrastructure, memory, complicity, public necessity, and private grief interact. Identify any places where symbolism risks becoming overdetermined.\n6. Production and Market Assessment: Discuss likely budget pressures, casting opportunities, location and weather dependencies, period requirements, audience, comparable films, festival prospects, and commercial limitations. Use comparables for positioning rather than claiming equivalent box office. Do not invent sales figures.\n7. Priority Rewrite Plan: Give five ranked notes. For each, include the underlying problem, a specific revision strategy, the likely benefit, and one risk or tradeoff. The notes must work together as a coherent next-draft strategy rather than as isolated ideas.\n8. Ending Options: Propose three distinct endings: one preserving the current ambiguity, one offering partial physical resolution, and one providing full resolution. Explain the thematic and market tradeoffs of each, then recommend one.\n9. Revised Logline: Maximum 35 words.\n10. Development Meeting Questions: Eight precise questions for the writer that could materially affect the next draft.\n11. Scorecard: Rate Premise, Plot, Character, Dialogue Potential, Theme, Visual Potential, Production Feasibility, and Marketability from 1–10, with a one-sentence rationale for each.\n\nWrite with the concise, specific tone of an experienced development executive. Treat the project seriously, challenge weak logic, and avoid rewriting it into a thriller. Where the supplied material does not permit a firm conclusion—particularly dialogue quality—say so directly rather than inventing evidence."
    }
  ]
}

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-4.8',
  settings: {
    systemPrompt: 'You are a senior conservation logistics analyst. Analyze images carefully, distinguish direct visual evidence from plausible inference, and produce concise professional documentation suitable for a museum registrar and insurance reviewer. Do not invent unseen facts.',
    maxTokens: 8192,
    thinkingLevel: 'adaptive'
  },
  inputs: {
    images: [
      'https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/9974e3a8-b749-41be-9ecc-eeff75029897.jpg'
    ]
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Analyze the attached shipment image. Produce a structured damage assessment with these sections: 1) visible evidence inventory, 2) suspected damage mechanisms with confidence levels, 3) immediate handling risks, 4) missing information needed from staff, 5) recommended triage actions in priority order, 6) concise insurance summary, and 7) a JSON object containing item_condition, packaging_condition, visible_labels, risk_level, and next_actions. Use only what can be supported from the image, and mark uncertainty clearly.'
    }
  ]
})

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-4.8",
            "settings": {
                "systemPrompt": "You are a senior conservation logistics analyst. Analyze images carefully, distinguish direct visual evidence from plausible inference, and produce concise professional documentation suitable for a museum registrar and insurance reviewer. Do not invent unseen facts.",
                "maxTokens": 8192,
                "thinkingLevel": "adaptive"
            },
            "inputs": {
                "images": [
                    "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/9974e3a8-b749-41be-9ecc-eeff75029897.jpg"
                ]
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Analyze the attached shipment image. Produce a structured damage assessment with these sections: 1) visible evidence inventory, 2) suspected damage mechanisms with confidence levels, 3) immediate handling risks, 4) missing information needed from staff, 5) recommended triage actions in priority order, 6) concise insurance summary, and 7) a JSON object containing item_condition, packaging_condition, visible_labels, risk_level, and next_actions. Use only what can be supported from the image, and mark uncertainty clearly."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "372097f4-a420-4083-876f-819be70eb252",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.8",
      "settings": {
        "systemPrompt": "You are a senior conservation logistics analyst. Analyze images carefully, distinguish direct visual evidence from plausible inference, and produce concise professional documentation suitable for a museum registrar and insurance reviewer. Do not invent unseen facts.",
        "maxTokens": 8192,
        "thinkingLevel": "adaptive"
      },
      "inputs": {
        "images": [
          "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/9974e3a8-b749-41be-9ecc-eeff75029897.jpg"
        ]
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Analyze the attached shipment image. Produce a structured damage assessment with these sections: 1) visible evidence inventory, 2) suspected damage mechanisms with confidence levels, 3) immediate handling risks, 4) missing information needed from staff, 5) recommended triage actions in priority order, 6) concise insurance summary, and 7) a JSON object containing item_condition, packaging_condition, visible_labels, risk_level, and next_actions. Use only what can be supported from the image, and mark uncertainty clearly."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@opus-4.8 \
  settings.systemPrompt="You are a senior conservation logistics analyst. Analyze images carefully, distinguish direct visual evidence from plausible inference, and produce concise professional documentation suitable for a museum registrar and insurance reviewer. Do not invent unseen facts." \
  settings.maxTokens=8192 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=adaptive \
  inputs.images.0=https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/9974e3a8-b749-41be-9ecc-eeff75029897.jpg \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Analyze the attached shipment image. Produce a structured damage assessment with these sections: 1) visible evidence inventory, 2) suspected damage mechanisms with confidence levels, 3) immediate handling risks, 4) missing information needed from staff, 5) recommended triage actions in priority order, 6) concise insurance summary, and 7) a JSON object containing item_condition, packaging_condition, visible_labels, risk_level, and next_actions. Use only what can be supported from the image, and mark uncertainty clearly."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "372097f4-a420-4083-876f-819be70eb252",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.8",
  "settings": {
    "systemPrompt": "You are a senior conservation logistics analyst. Analyze images carefully, distinguish direct visual evidence from plausible inference, and produce concise professional documentation suitable for a museum registrar and insurance reviewer. Do not invent unseen facts.",
    "maxTokens": 8192,
    "thinkingLevel": "adaptive"
  },
  "inputs": {
    "images": [
      "https://assets.runware.ai/assets/inputs/9974e3a8-b749-41be-9ecc-eeff75029897.jpg"
    ]
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Analyze the attached shipment image. Produce a structured damage assessment with these sections: 1) visible evidence inventory, 2) suspected damage mechanisms with confidence levels, 3) immediate handling risks, 4) missing information needed from staff, 5) recommended triage actions in priority order, 6) concise insurance summary, and 7) a JSON object containing item_condition, packaging_condition, visible_labels, risk_level, and next_actions. Use only what can be supported from the image, and mark uncertainty clearly."
    }
  ]
}

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-4.8',
  settings: {
    systemPrompt: 'You are a principal AI engineer and reliability architect. Produce precise, implementation-ready guidance with clear assumptions, prioritized risks, test strategy, and concise code-oriented recommendations. Avoid hand-waving.',
    maxTokens: 8192,
    thinkingLevel: 'adaptive',
    cache: {
      scope: 'system+history',
      ttl: '5m'
    }
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'A genomics lab runs a Python service named HelixQueue that assigns sequencing batches to GPU workers. After adding support for international sample identifiers, the system began producing rare duplicate assignments and occasional missing audit rows. The service uses FastAPI, PostgreSQL, Redis streams, SQLAlchemy, and a small in-house scheduler. Symptoms appear only under heavy load when workers restart mid-batch. Provide a senior-engineer response that includes: 1) likely root causes ranked by probability, 2) a minimal reproduction plan, 3) a transaction-safe redesign using idempotency keys and explicit state transitions, 4) PostgreSQL schema changes with constraints, 5) Python pseudocode for the corrected scheduler loop, 6) a migration and rollout plan, 7) observability signals and alerts, and 8) a compact risk register. Make the answer actionable enough for a team to implement this week.'
    }
  ]
})

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-4.8",
            "settings": {
                "systemPrompt": "You are a principal AI engineer and reliability architect. Produce precise, implementation-ready guidance with clear assumptions, prioritized risks, test strategy, and concise code-oriented recommendations. Avoid hand-waving.",
                "maxTokens": 8192,
                "thinkingLevel": "adaptive",
                "cache": {
                    "scope": "system+history",
                    "ttl": "5m"
                }
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "A genomics lab runs a Python service named HelixQueue that assigns sequencing batches to GPU workers. After adding support for international sample identifiers, the system began producing rare duplicate assignments and occasional missing audit rows. The service uses FastAPI, PostgreSQL, Redis streams, SQLAlchemy, and a small in-house scheduler. Symptoms appear only under heavy load when workers restart mid-batch. Provide a senior-engineer response that includes: 1) likely root causes ranked by probability, 2) a minimal reproduction plan, 3) a transaction-safe redesign using idempotency keys and explicit state transitions, 4) PostgreSQL schema changes with constraints, 5) Python pseudocode for the corrected scheduler loop, 6) a migration and rollout plan, 7) observability signals and alerts, and 8) a compact risk register. Make the answer actionable enough for a team to implement this week."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "b8fd30da-2e10-4fa4-94d8-452b3a5e3b28",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.8",
      "settings": {
        "systemPrompt": "You are a principal AI engineer and reliability architect. Produce precise, implementation-ready guidance with clear assumptions, prioritized risks, test strategy, and concise code-oriented recommendations. Avoid hand-waving.",
        "maxTokens": 8192,
        "thinkingLevel": "adaptive",
        "cache": {
          "scope": "system+history",
          "ttl": "5m"
        }
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "A genomics lab runs a Python service named HelixQueue that assigns sequencing batches to GPU workers. After adding support for international sample identifiers, the system began producing rare duplicate assignments and occasional missing audit rows. The service uses FastAPI, PostgreSQL, Redis streams, SQLAlchemy, and a small in-house scheduler. Symptoms appear only under heavy load when workers restart mid-batch. Provide a senior-engineer response that includes: 1) likely root causes ranked by probability, 2) a minimal reproduction plan, 3) a transaction-safe redesign using idempotency keys and explicit state transitions, 4) PostgreSQL schema changes with constraints, 5) Python pseudocode for the corrected scheduler loop, 6) a migration and rollout plan, 7) observability signals and alerts, and 8) a compact risk register. Make the answer actionable enough for a team to implement this week."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@opus-4.8 \
  settings.systemPrompt="You are a principal AI engineer and reliability architect. Produce precise, implementation-ready guidance with clear assumptions, prioritized risks, test strategy, and concise code-oriented recommendations. Avoid hand-waving." \
  settings.maxTokens=8192 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=adaptive \
  settings.cache.scope=system+history \
  settings.cache.ttl=5m \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="A genomics lab runs a Python service named HelixQueue that assigns sequencing batches to GPU workers. After adding support for international sample identifiers, the system began producing rare duplicate assignments and occasional missing audit rows. The service uses FastAPI, PostgreSQL, Redis streams, SQLAlchemy, and a small in-house scheduler. Symptoms appear only under heavy load when workers restart mid-batch. Provide a senior-engineer response that includes: 1) likely root causes ranked by probability, 2) a minimal reproduction plan, 3) a transaction-safe redesign using idempotency keys and explicit state transitions, 4) PostgreSQL schema changes with constraints, 5) Python pseudocode for the corrected scheduler loop, 6) a migration and rollout plan, 7) observability signals and alerts, and 8) a compact risk register. Make the answer actionable enough for a team to implement this week."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "b8fd30da-2e10-4fa4-94d8-452b3a5e3b28",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.8",
  "settings": {
    "systemPrompt": "You are a principal AI engineer and reliability architect. Produce precise, implementation-ready guidance with clear assumptions, prioritized risks, test strategy, and concise code-oriented recommendations. Avoid hand-waving.",
    "maxTokens": 8192,
    "thinkingLevel": "adaptive",
    "cache": {
      "scope": "system+history",
      "ttl": "5m"
    }
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "A genomics lab runs a Python service named HelixQueue that assigns sequencing batches to GPU workers. After adding support for international sample identifiers, the system began producing rare duplicate assignments and occasional missing audit rows. The service uses FastAPI, PostgreSQL, Redis streams, SQLAlchemy, and a small in-house scheduler. Symptoms appear only under heavy load when workers restart mid-batch. Provide a senior-engineer response that includes: 1) likely root causes ranked by probability, 2) a minimal reproduction plan, 3) a transaction-safe redesign using idempotency keys and explicit state transitions, 4) PostgreSQL schema changes with constraints, 5) Python pseudocode for the corrected scheduler loop, 6) a migration and rollout plan, 7) observability signals and alerts, and 8) a compact risk register. Make the answer actionable enough for a team to implement this week."
    }
  ]
}

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-4.8',
  settings: {
    thinkingLevel: 'high',
    maxTokens: 6000
  },
  messages: [
    {
      role: 'user',
      content: 'Act as a senior crisis communications lead for a packaged-food company. Using only the verified facts below, prepare a polished communications package for an undeclared-allergen recall. Maintain exact consistency across every component, make the actions immediately understandable, and do not invent a recall classification, symptoms, test results, quotations, or distribution details.\n\nVERIFIED FACTS\n- Company: Meadow & Finch Foods, Columbus, Ohio\n- Product: Little Orchard Apple Oat Bites, 5.4 oz resealable pouch\n- Issue: Some pouches may contain sesame because a supplier shipped the wrong cinnamon seasoning blend. Sesame is not declared on the package.\n- Affected best-by dates: 18 OCT 2026 and 25 OCT 2026\n- Affected lot codes: AO2418 and AO2425\n- UPC: 8 51740 00316 2\n- Lot code and best-by date appear on the back seal near the top of the pouch.\n- Distribution: Kroger and Kroger-affiliated stores in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia; sold from August 12 through August 29, 2026.\n- Other Meadow & Finch products and other lots of this product are not affected.\n- No confirmed illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported as of 3:00 p.m. ET on August 30, 2026.\n- The company initiated the voluntary recall after a retailer complaint noted an unexpected tahini-like aroma. A subsequent internal trace identified the seasoning shipment error.\n- FDA was notified at 11:20 a.m. ET on August 30, 2026. FDA has not yet assigned a recall classification.\n- Consumer action: People with a sesame allergy should not eat the affected product. Consumers should discard it or return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. No receipt is required.\n- Consumer line: 1-888-555-0147, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. ET\n- Email: care@meadowfinch.example\n- Retailer action: Stop sale immediately, remove affected units from shelves and back stock, isolate them, follow the distributor\'s return instructions, and confirm completion through the existing retailer portal by 5:00 p.m. local time on August 31, 2026.\n- Company posture: Direct, accountable, calm, and empathetic. Do not speculate or describe the recall as merely precautionary.\n\nDELIVERABLE\nCreate one integrated package with these six labeled sections:\n\n1. PUBLIC RECALL NOTICE\nWrite a publication-ready notice of 450-600 words. Use a factual headline and a compact identification block that makes the product, UPC, lots, dates, states, and code location easy to scan. Lead with the allergen risk and required consumer action. Include why the recall began, current illness-report status with its timestamp, refund instructions, contact details, and a clear statement about unaffected products. Do not use a fabricated executive quote.\n\n2. RETAILER ACTION MEMO\nWrite a concise operational memo with a subject line, deadline, exact affected-product identifiers, a numbered action checklist, and an escalation instruction for inventory discrepancies. Because no discrepancy contact was provided, direct retailers to the consumer line and explicitly identify it as the currently authorized contact rather than inventing a separate trade number.\n\n3. CUSTOMER-SERVICE CALL SCRIPT\nProvide a natural opening, verification questions, branching responses for: an unaffected lot; an affected unopened pouch; an affected pouch that was partly consumed with no reaction; and a caller reporting a possible reaction. Agents must not diagnose or offer treatment. For possible reactions, instruct the caller to seek prompt guidance from a qualified healthcare professional and to call emergency services if symptoms are severe or rapidly worsening. Include an incident-intake checklist and an empathetic closing.\n\n4. CONSUMER FAQ\nWrite 8 questions and answers covering the hazard, affected products, code location, what to do, refunds, consumption without a reaction, reported incidents, and whether other products are affected. Keep answers plain-language and non-repetitive.\n\n5. SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS\nWrite one post each for Instagram/Facebook, X, and LinkedIn. Respect X\'s 280-character limit. Put safety and identification ahead of corporate commentary. Since no recall webpage URL has been provided, do not fabricate one; direct readers to the phone number or email instead.\n\n6. CONSISTENCY AND RISK CHECK\nFinish with a compact table listing: critical fact, approved wording used, and common wording to avoid. Cover at least recall scope, allergen risk, incident status, FDA status, cause, and consumer action. Then list any communication gaps that should be resolved before distribution without delaying the immediate safety notice.\n\nUse restrained, professional language throughout. Avoid legal conclusions, blame, euphemisms, and unsupported reassurance.'
    }
  ]
})

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-4.8",
            "settings": {
                "thinkingLevel": "high",
                "maxTokens": 6000
            },
            "messages": [
                {
                    "role": "user",
                    "content": "Act as a senior crisis communications lead for a packaged-food company. Using only the verified facts below, prepare a polished communications package for an undeclared-allergen recall. Maintain exact consistency across every component, make the actions immediately understandable, and do not invent a recall classification, symptoms, test results, quotations, or distribution details.\n\nVERIFIED FACTS\n- Company: Meadow & Finch Foods, Columbus, Ohio\n- Product: Little Orchard Apple Oat Bites, 5.4 oz resealable pouch\n- Issue: Some pouches may contain sesame because a supplier shipped the wrong cinnamon seasoning blend. Sesame is not declared on the package.\n- Affected best-by dates: 18 OCT 2026 and 25 OCT 2026\n- Affected lot codes: AO2418 and AO2425\n- UPC: 8 51740 00316 2\n- Lot code and best-by date appear on the back seal near the top of the pouch.\n- Distribution: Kroger and Kroger-affiliated stores in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia; sold from August 12 through August 29, 2026.\n- Other Meadow & Finch products and other lots of this product are not affected.\n- No confirmed illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported as of 3:00 p.m. ET on August 30, 2026.\n- The company initiated the voluntary recall after a retailer complaint noted an unexpected tahini-like aroma. A subsequent internal trace identified the seasoning shipment error.\n- FDA was notified at 11:20 a.m. ET on August 30, 2026. FDA has not yet assigned a recall classification.\n- Consumer action: People with a sesame allergy should not eat the affected product. Consumers should discard it or return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. No receipt is required.\n- Consumer line: 1-888-555-0147, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. ET\n- Email: care@meadowfinch.example\n- Retailer action: Stop sale immediately, remove affected units from shelves and back stock, isolate them, follow the distributor's return instructions, and confirm completion through the existing retailer portal by 5:00 p.m. local time on August 31, 2026.\n- Company posture: Direct, accountable, calm, and empathetic. Do not speculate or describe the recall as merely precautionary.\n\nDELIVERABLE\nCreate one integrated package with these six labeled sections:\n\n1. PUBLIC RECALL NOTICE\nWrite a publication-ready notice of 450-600 words. Use a factual headline and a compact identification block that makes the product, UPC, lots, dates, states, and code location easy to scan. Lead with the allergen risk and required consumer action. Include why the recall began, current illness-report status with its timestamp, refund instructions, contact details, and a clear statement about unaffected products. Do not use a fabricated executive quote.\n\n2. RETAILER ACTION MEMO\nWrite a concise operational memo with a subject line, deadline, exact affected-product identifiers, a numbered action checklist, and an escalation instruction for inventory discrepancies. Because no discrepancy contact was provided, direct retailers to the consumer line and explicitly identify it as the currently authorized contact rather than inventing a separate trade number.\n\n3. CUSTOMER-SERVICE CALL SCRIPT\nProvide a natural opening, verification questions, branching responses for: an unaffected lot; an affected unopened pouch; an affected pouch that was partly consumed with no reaction; and a caller reporting a possible reaction. Agents must not diagnose or offer treatment. For possible reactions, instruct the caller to seek prompt guidance from a qualified healthcare professional and to call emergency services if symptoms are severe or rapidly worsening. Include an incident-intake checklist and an empathetic closing.\n\n4. CONSUMER FAQ\nWrite 8 questions and answers covering the hazard, affected products, code location, what to do, refunds, consumption without a reaction, reported incidents, and whether other products are affected. Keep answers plain-language and non-repetitive.\n\n5. SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS\nWrite one post each for Instagram/Facebook, X, and LinkedIn. Respect X's 280-character limit. Put safety and identification ahead of corporate commentary. Since no recall webpage URL has been provided, do not fabricate one; direct readers to the phone number or email instead.\n\n6. CONSISTENCY AND RISK CHECK\nFinish with a compact table listing: critical fact, approved wording used, and common wording to avoid. Cover at least recall scope, allergen risk, incident status, FDA status, cause, and consumer action. Then list any communication gaps that should be resolved before distribution without delaying the immediate safety notice.\n\nUse restrained, professional language throughout. Avoid legal conclusions, blame, euphemisms, and unsupported reassurance."
                }
            ]
        })


asyncio.run(main())

curl https://api.runware.ai/v1 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $RUNWARE_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '[
    {
      "taskType": "textInference",
      "taskUUID": "c826f852-dcfe-45a1-b700-6a83e53bf468",
      "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.8",
      "settings": {
        "thinkingLevel": "high",
        "maxTokens": 6000
      },
      "messages": [
        {
          "role": "user",
          "content": "Act as a senior crisis communications lead for a packaged-food company. Using only the verified facts below, prepare a polished communications package for an undeclared-allergen recall. Maintain exact consistency across every component, make the actions immediately understandable, and do not invent a recall classification, symptoms, test results, quotations, or distribution details.\n\nVERIFIED FACTS\n- Company: Meadow & Finch Foods, Columbus, Ohio\n- Product: Little Orchard Apple Oat Bites, 5.4 oz resealable pouch\n- Issue: Some pouches may contain sesame because a supplier shipped the wrong cinnamon seasoning blend. Sesame is not declared on the package.\n- Affected best-by dates: 18 OCT 2026 and 25 OCT 2026\n- Affected lot codes: AO2418 and AO2425\n- UPC: 8 51740 00316 2\n- Lot code and best-by date appear on the back seal near the top of the pouch.\n- Distribution: Kroger and Kroger-affiliated stores in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia; sold from August 12 through August 29, 2026.\n- Other Meadow & Finch products and other lots of this product are not affected.\n- No confirmed illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported as of 3:00 p.m. ET on August 30, 2026.\n- The company initiated the voluntary recall after a retailer complaint noted an unexpected tahini-like aroma. A subsequent internal trace identified the seasoning shipment error.\n- FDA was notified at 11:20 a.m. ET on August 30, 2026. FDA has not yet assigned a recall classification.\n- Consumer action: People with a sesame allergy should not eat the affected product. Consumers should discard it or return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. No receipt is required.\n- Consumer line: 1-888-555-0147, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. ET\n- Email: care@meadowfinch.example\n- Retailer action: Stop sale immediately, remove affected units from shelves and back stock, isolate them, follow the distributor's return instructions, and confirm completion through the existing retailer portal by 5:00 p.m. local time on August 31, 2026.\n- Company posture: Direct, accountable, calm, and empathetic. Do not speculate or describe the recall as merely precautionary.\n\nDELIVERABLE\nCreate one integrated package with these six labeled sections:\n\n1. PUBLIC RECALL NOTICE\nWrite a publication-ready notice of 450-600 words. Use a factual headline and a compact identification block that makes the product, UPC, lots, dates, states, and code location easy to scan. Lead with the allergen risk and required consumer action. Include why the recall began, current illness-report status with its timestamp, refund instructions, contact details, and a clear statement about unaffected products. Do not use a fabricated executive quote.\n\n2. RETAILER ACTION MEMO\nWrite a concise operational memo with a subject line, deadline, exact affected-product identifiers, a numbered action checklist, and an escalation instruction for inventory discrepancies. Because no discrepancy contact was provided, direct retailers to the consumer line and explicitly identify it as the currently authorized contact rather than inventing a separate trade number.\n\n3. CUSTOMER-SERVICE CALL SCRIPT\nProvide a natural opening, verification questions, branching responses for: an unaffected lot; an affected unopened pouch; an affected pouch that was partly consumed with no reaction; and a caller reporting a possible reaction. Agents must not diagnose or offer treatment. For possible reactions, instruct the caller to seek prompt guidance from a qualified healthcare professional and to call emergency services if symptoms are severe or rapidly worsening. Include an incident-intake checklist and an empathetic closing.\n\n4. CONSUMER FAQ\nWrite 8 questions and answers covering the hazard, affected products, code location, what to do, refunds, consumption without a reaction, reported incidents, and whether other products are affected. Keep answers plain-language and non-repetitive.\n\n5. SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS\nWrite one post each for Instagram/Facebook, X, and LinkedIn. Respect X's 280-character limit. Put safety and identification ahead of corporate commentary. Since no recall webpage URL has been provided, do not fabricate one; direct readers to the phone number or email instead.\n\n6. CONSISTENCY AND RISK CHECK\nFinish with a compact table listing: critical fact, approved wording used, and common wording to avoid. Cover at least recall scope, allergen risk, incident status, FDA status, cause, and consumer action. Then list any communication gaps that should be resolved before distribution without delaying the immediate safety notice.\n\nUse restrained, professional language throughout. Avoid legal conclusions, blame, euphemisms, and unsupported reassurance."
        }
      ]
    }
  ]'

runware run anthropic:claude@opus-4.8 \
  settings.thinkingLevel=high \
  settings.maxTokens=6000 \
  messages.0.role=user \
  messages.0.content="Act as a senior crisis communications lead for a packaged-food company. Using only the verified facts below, prepare a polished communications package for an undeclared-allergen recall. Maintain exact consistency across every component, make the actions immediately understandable, and do not invent a recall classification, symptoms, test results, quotations, or distribution details.

VERIFIED FACTS
- Company: Meadow & Finch Foods, Columbus, Ohio
- Product: Little Orchard Apple Oat Bites, 5.4 oz resealable pouch
- Issue: Some pouches may contain sesame because a supplier shipped the wrong cinnamon seasoning blend. Sesame is not declared on the package.
- Affected best-by dates: 18 OCT 2026 and 25 OCT 2026
- Affected lot codes: AO2418 and AO2425
- UPC: 8 51740 00316 2
- Lot code and best-by date appear on the back seal near the top of the pouch.
- Distribution: Kroger and Kroger-affiliated stores in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia; sold from August 12 through August 29, 2026.
- Other Meadow & Finch products and other lots of this product are not affected.
- No confirmed illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported as of 3:00 p.m. ET on August 30, 2026.
- The company initiated the voluntary recall after a retailer complaint noted an unexpected tahini-like aroma. A subsequent internal trace identified the seasoning shipment error.
- FDA was notified at 11:20 a.m. ET on August 30, 2026. FDA has not yet assigned a recall classification.
- Consumer action: People with a sesame allergy should not eat the affected product. Consumers should discard it or return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. No receipt is required.
- Consumer line: 1-888-555-0147, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. ET
- Email: care@meadowfinch.example
- Retailer action: Stop sale immediately, remove affected units from shelves and back stock, isolate them, follow the distributor's return instructions, and confirm completion through the existing retailer portal by 5:00 p.m. local time on August 31, 2026.
- Company posture: Direct, accountable, calm, and empathetic. Do not speculate or describe the recall as merely precautionary.

DELIVERABLE
Create one integrated package with these six labeled sections:

1. PUBLIC RECALL NOTICE
Write a publication-ready notice of 450-600 words. Use a factual headline and a compact identification block that makes the product, UPC, lots, dates, states, and code location easy to scan. Lead with the allergen risk and required consumer action. Include why the recall began, current illness-report status with its timestamp, refund instructions, contact details, and a clear statement about unaffected products. Do not use a fabricated executive quote.

2. RETAILER ACTION MEMO
Write a concise operational memo with a subject line, deadline, exact affected-product identifiers, a numbered action checklist, and an escalation instruction for inventory discrepancies. Because no discrepancy contact was provided, direct retailers to the consumer line and explicitly identify it as the currently authorized contact rather than inventing a separate trade number.

3. CUSTOMER-SERVICE CALL SCRIPT
Provide a natural opening, verification questions, branching responses for: an unaffected lot; an affected unopened pouch; an affected pouch that was partly consumed with no reaction; and a caller reporting a possible reaction. Agents must not diagnose or offer treatment. For possible reactions, instruct the caller to seek prompt guidance from a qualified healthcare professional and to call emergency services if symptoms are severe or rapidly worsening. Include an incident-intake checklist and an empathetic closing.

4. CONSUMER FAQ
Write 8 questions and answers covering the hazard, affected products, code location, what to do, refunds, consumption without a reaction, reported incidents, and whether other products are affected. Keep answers plain-language and non-repetitive.

5. SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS
Write one post each for Instagram/Facebook, X, and LinkedIn. Respect X's 280-character limit. Put safety and identification ahead of corporate commentary. Since no recall webpage URL has been provided, do not fabricate one; direct readers to the phone number or email instead.

6. CONSISTENCY AND RISK CHECK
Finish with a compact table listing: critical fact, approved wording used, and common wording to avoid. Cover at least recall scope, allergen risk, incident status, FDA status, cause, and consumer action. Then list any communication gaps that should be resolved before distribution without delaying the immediate safety notice.

Use restrained, professional language throughout. Avoid legal conclusions, blame, euphemisms, and unsupported reassurance."

{
  "taskType": "textInference",
  "taskUUID": "c826f852-dcfe-45a1-b700-6a83e53bf468",
  "model": "anthropic:claude@opus-4.8",
  "settings": {
    "thinkingLevel": "high",
    "maxTokens": 6000
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "role": "user",
      "content": "Act as a senior crisis communications lead for a packaged-food company. Using only the verified facts below, prepare a polished communications package for an undeclared-allergen recall. Maintain exact consistency across every component, make the actions immediately understandable, and do not invent a recall classification, symptoms, test results, quotations, or distribution details.\n\nVERIFIED FACTS\n- Company: Meadow & Finch Foods, Columbus, Ohio\n- Product: Little Orchard Apple Oat Bites, 5.4 oz resealable pouch\n- Issue: Some pouches may contain sesame because a supplier shipped the wrong cinnamon seasoning blend. Sesame is not declared on the package.\n- Affected best-by dates: 18 OCT 2026 and 25 OCT 2026\n- Affected lot codes: AO2418 and AO2425\n- UPC: 8 51740 00316 2\n- Lot code and best-by date appear on the back seal near the top of the pouch.\n- Distribution: Kroger and Kroger-affiliated stores in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia; sold from August 12 through August 29, 2026.\n- Other Meadow & Finch products and other lots of this product are not affected.\n- No confirmed illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported as of 3:00 p.m. ET on August 30, 2026.\n- The company initiated the voluntary recall after a retailer complaint noted an unexpected tahini-like aroma. A subsequent internal trace identified the seasoning shipment error.\n- FDA was notified at 11:20 a.m. ET on August 30, 2026. FDA has not yet assigned a recall classification.\n- Consumer action: People with a sesame allergy should not eat the affected product. Consumers should discard it or return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. No receipt is required.\n- Consumer line: 1-888-555-0147, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. ET\n- Email: care@meadowfinch.example\n- Retailer action: Stop sale immediately, remove affected units from shelves and back stock, isolate them, follow the distributor's return instructions, and confirm completion through the existing retailer portal by 5:00 p.m. local time on August 31, 2026.\n- Company posture: Direct, accountable, calm, and empathetic. Do not speculate or describe the recall as merely precautionary.\n\nDELIVERABLE\nCreate one integrated package with these six labeled sections:\n\n1. PUBLIC RECALL NOTICE\nWrite a publication-ready notice of 450-600 words. Use a factual headline and a compact identification block that makes the product, UPC, lots, dates, states, and code location easy to scan. Lead with the allergen risk and required consumer action. Include why the recall began, current illness-report status with its timestamp, refund instructions, contact details, and a clear statement about unaffected products. Do not use a fabricated executive quote.\n\n2. RETAILER ACTION MEMO\nWrite a concise operational memo with a subject line, deadline, exact affected-product identifiers, a numbered action checklist, and an escalation instruction for inventory discrepancies. Because no discrepancy contact was provided, direct retailers to the consumer line and explicitly identify it as the currently authorized contact rather than inventing a separate trade number.\n\n3. CUSTOMER-SERVICE CALL SCRIPT\nProvide a natural opening, verification questions, branching responses for: an unaffected lot; an affected unopened pouch; an affected pouch that was partly consumed with no reaction; and a caller reporting a possible reaction. Agents must not diagnose or offer treatment. For possible reactions, instruct the caller to seek prompt guidance from a qualified healthcare professional and to call emergency services if symptoms are severe or rapidly worsening. Include an incident-intake checklist and an empathetic closing.\n\n4. CONSUMER FAQ\nWrite 8 questions and answers covering the hazard, affected products, code location, what to do, refunds, consumption without a reaction, reported incidents, and whether other products are affected. Keep answers plain-language and non-repetitive.\n\n5. SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS\nWrite one post each for Instagram/Facebook, X, and LinkedIn. Respect X's 280-character limit. Put safety and identification ahead of corporate commentary. Since no recall webpage URL has been provided, do not fabricate one; direct readers to the phone number or email instead.\n\n6. CONSISTENCY AND RISK CHECK\nFinish with a compact table listing: critical fact, approved wording used, and common wording to avoid. Cover at least recall scope, allergen risk, incident status, FDA status, cause, and consumer action. Then list any communication gaps that should be resolved before distribution without delaying the immediate safety notice.\n\nUse restrained, professional language throughout. Avoid legal conclusions, blame, euphemisms, and unsupported reassurance."
    }
  ]
}