Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

anth-architecture-variants

Choose an architecture for Claude API workloads, from serverless functions and streaming microservices to queued batch jobs and multi-model routing. Receive trade-offs, scaling and failure controls, and a validation and rollout plan suited to the workload.

OriginalShow the original description

Choose and implement Claude API architecture patterns for different scales: serverless, microservice, event-driven, and edge deployment. Trigger with phrases like "anthropic architecture", "claude serverless", "claude microservice design", "edge claude deployment".

Works withAWS

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Good for

  • Choosing an architecture for a Claude API project
  • Building an interactive streaming chatbot
  • Processing documents in queued batches
  • Routing requests across models by task

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md7.5 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Anthropic Architecture Variants

Overview

Four validated architecture patterns for Claude API integrations at different scales and use cases.

Variant 1: Serverless (AWS Lambda / Cloud Functions)

# Best for: < 100 RPM, event-driven, pay-per-invocation
# lambda_function.py
import anthropic
import json

def handler(event, context):
    client = anthropic.Anthropic()  # Key from Lambda env var

    body = json.loads(event["body"])
    msg = client.messages.create(
        model="claude-haiku-4-20250514",  # Haiku for Lambda speed
        max_tokens=512,
        messages=[{"role": "user", "content": body["prompt"]}]
    )

    return {
        "statusCode": 200,
        "body": json.dumps({
            "text": msg.content[0].text,
            "tokens": msg.usage.input_tokens + msg.usage.output_tokens
        })
    }

Trade-offs: Cold starts add 1-3s. Lambda timeout (15min) limits long generations. No connection pooling between invocations.

Variant 2: Streaming Microservice (FastAPI + WebSocket)

# Best for: chatbots, interactive UIs, real-time responses
from fastapi import FastAPI, WebSocket
import anthropic

app = FastAPI()
client = anthropic.Anthropic()

@app.websocket("/chat")
async def chat_ws(websocket: WebSocket):
    await websocket.accept()
    while True:
        prompt = await websocket.receive_text()
        with client.messages.stream(
            model="claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
            max_tokens=2048,
            messages=[{"role": "user", "content": prompt}]
        ) as stream:
            for text in stream.text_stream:
                await websocket.send_text(text)
            await websocket.send_text("[DONE]")

Variant 3: Queue-Based Pipeline (Celery / Cloud Tasks)

# Best for: batch processing, async workflows, high volume
from celery import Celery
import anthropic

app = Celery("tasks", broker="redis://localhost")

@app.task(bind=True, max_retries=3, default_retry_delay=30)
def process_document(self, doc_id: str, content: str):
    try:
        client = anthropic.Anthropic()
        msg = client.messages.create(
            model="claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
            max_tokens=2048,
            messages=[{"role": "user", "content": f"Summarize:\n\n{content}"}]
        )
        save_result(doc_id, msg.content[0].text)
    except anthropic.RateLimitError as e:
        self.retry(exc=e, countdown=int(e.response.headers.get("retry-after", 30)))

Variant 4: Multi-Model Orchestrator

# Best for: complex workflows needing different model strengths
class ClaudeOrchestrator:
    def __init__(self):
        self.client = anthropic.Anthropic()

    def classify_then_respond(self, user_input: str) -> str:
        # Step 1: Classify intent with Haiku (fast, cheap)
        classification = self.client.messages.create(
            model="claude-haiku-4-20250514",
            max_tokens=32,
            messages=[{
                "role": "user",
                "content": f"Classify as: question|task|creative|code\nInput: {user_input[:200]}"
            }]
        )
        intent = classification.content[0].text.strip().lower()

        # Step 2: Route to optimal model
        model = {
            "question": "claude-haiku-4-20250514",
            "task": "claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
            "creative": "claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
            "code": "claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
        }.get(intent, "claude-sonnet-4-20250514")

        # Step 3: Generate response
        msg = self.client.messages.create(
            model=model,
            max_tokens=4096,
            messages=[{"role": "user", "content": user_input}]
        )
        return msg.content[0].text

Architecture Selection Guide

FactorServerlessMicroserviceQueue-BasedOrchestrator
LatencyHigh (cold start)Low (streaming)N/A (async)Medium
VolumeLow (<100 RPM)MediumHighMedium
CostPay-per-useFixed infraBatch savingsOptimized per-task
ComplexityLowMediumMediumHigh
Best forAPIs, triggersChatbotsETL, processingComplex workflows

Prerequisites

  • Document latency, throughput, availability, data residency, retention, budget, and side-effect requirements before choosing a variant.
  • Provide an approved model/workspace allowlist, secret-manager integration, authenticated ingress/egress, shared rate limiter where needed, and a rollback owner.
  • Use synthetic fixtures and a no-op tool/sink in a sandbox. Logs must contain topology and aggregate metrics only, not prompts, completions, credentials, or tool arguments.

Instructions

  1. Select the smallest architecture that satisfies measured latency and volume, then record why its timeout, queue, connection, and failure boundaries are adequate.
  2. Keep API keys server-side, validate tenant/model/destination scope at ingress, and apply least privilege to workers and queues. Isolate streaming connections from batch consumers.
  3. Add bounded retries, circuit breaking, backpressure, idempotent result handling, and health checks appropriate to the selected variant. Protect every tool or downstream write with an allowlist and approval gate.
  4. Exercise the design with synthetic load and failure injection, then release to a limited canary. Compare error rate, latency, queue depth, token/cost aggregates, and data-scope assertions.
  5. Promote only after owner approval; otherwise restore the prior topology/configuration and remove temporary fixtures, queues, and credentials.

Output

Produce an architecture decision receipt with selected variant, constraints, trust boundaries, model/workspace scope, scaling and failure controls, aggregate test results, canary outcome, rollback reference, and retention/cleanup status. Exclude all content and secrets.

Error Handling

  • If measured demand exceeds the selected variant's safe envelope, apply backpressure and choose a queue or scale path; do not simply increase concurrency against the provider.
  • If a worker, stream, or queue loses its authorization context, fail closed and quarantine the item rather than retrying with broader credentials.
  • If partial output or duplicate delivery occurs, mark the result incomplete, deduplicate by an application ID, and roll back the consumer if duplicates persist.
  • If an architecture gate cannot be observed, stop promotion and retain the last known-good variant.

Examples

For a synthetic 20-RPM interactive workload with a strict streaming UX, select the microservice variant, use a shared limiter and a no-op sink, and record scope=staging; external_side_effects=0; canary=pass; rollback=ready. For offline summaries, select the queue/batch variant and retain only aggregate completion counts.

Resources

Next Steps

For common pitfalls, see anth-known-pitfalls.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Add a synthetic-data CI gate for customer-owned Abridge integration code. Test consent handling, note-review handoffs, redaction, and rollback behavior with mocked vendor boundaries, without connecting CI to a live Abridge or EHR tenant.

  • Adding regression checks to an Abridge integration repository
  • Testing consent and note-release handling
  • Checking logs for sensitive data exposure
jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.9KUpdated Oct 23, 2026

Triage Abridge recording, note review, Epic handoff, and access problems using observed symptoms and approved guidance. Identify the affected workflow stage, organize a minimal timeline, and prepare a redacted escalation record for the responsible team.

  • Separate recording problems from upload failures
  • Investigate note creation delays and editor issues
  • Identify the responsible team for Epic handoff failures
jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.9KUpdated Oct 23, 2026

Map and review an Abridge clinical documentation workflow from consent and recording through draft review, evidence checks, edits, and final disposition. Keep clinician approval explicit, identify failure exits, and separate verified facts from tenant-specific details and pending approvals.

  • Map a clinical note workflow for a care setting
  • Check where consent and patient identity are verified
  • Review draft notes against linked evidence before sign-off
jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.9KUpdated Oct 23, 2026

Audit how clinician-reviewed Abridge note sections map into Epic templates and downstream workflows. Use approved test records to document destinations, exceptions, evidence, rollback steps, and a go or no-go decision for a specific environment.

  • Checking Abridge note section mappings to Epic templates
  • Auditing a department’s approved documentation handoff
  • Preparing test evidence and a go or no-go decision
jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.9KUpdated Oct 23, 2026

Review Abridge adoption and workflow value using local usage records, clinician feedback, and verified contract costs. Build an evidence based decision table covering adoption, quality, support burden, and options to expand, hold, or improve the rollout.

  • Reviewing adoption after an Abridge rollout
  • Preparing evidence for a renewal decision
  • Comparing workflow outcomes across care settings
jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.9KUpdated Oct 23, 2026

Prepare a bounded support bundle for an Abridge issue using allowlisted operational details such as versions, coarse timestamps, and correlation references. Exclude recordings, transcripts, patient identifiers, credentials, and unrestricted logs, then document redactions and review details.

  • Preparing reviewed evidence for an Abridge support case
  • Documenting redactions and excluded data
  • Collecting approved operational details for an incident
jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.9KUpdated Oct 23, 2026

See all skills by jeremylongshore

Report a problem with this skill