본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

anth-advanced-troubleshooting

Investigate difficult Claude API failures by isolating token limits, tool schemas, streaming behavior, stop reasons, or prompt settings. Compare a small, safe reproduction with a known-good baseline and produce redacted evidence for review.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Debug complex Claude API issues including context window overflow, tool use failures, streaming corruption, and response quality problems. Trigger with phrases like "anthropic advanced debug", "claude complex issue", "claude tool use failing", "claude context overflow".

실행 점수 미검증

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Diagnose Claude context window errors
  • Troubleshoot tool calls that do not run
  • Investigate interrupted or corrupted streams
  • Compare response quality against a baseline

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md8.2 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Anthropic Advanced Troubleshooting

Issue: Context Window Overflow

# Symptom: invalid_request_error about token count
# Diagnosis: pre-check with Token Counting API
import anthropic

client = anthropic.Anthropic()

count = client.messages.count_tokens(
    model="claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
    messages=conversation_history,
    system=system_prompt
)
print(f"Input tokens: {count.input_tokens}")
# Claude Sonnet: 200K context, Claude Opus: 200K context

# Fix: truncate oldest messages or summarize
def trim_conversation(messages: list, max_tokens: int = 180_000) -> list:
    """Keep recent messages within token budget."""
    # Always keep first (system context) and last 5 messages
    if len(messages) <= 5:
        return messages
    return messages[:1] + messages[-5:]  # Crude but effective

Issue: Tool Use Not Triggering

# Symptom: Claude responds with text instead of calling tools
# Diagnosis checklist:
# 1. Tool description must clearly state WHEN to use the tool
# 2. User message must match the tool's trigger condition

# BAD description (too vague):
{"name": "search", "description": "Search for things"}

# GOOD description (clear trigger):
{"name": "search_products", "description": "Search the product catalog by name, category, or price range. Use whenever the user asks about products, pricing, or availability."}

# Force tool use if needed:
message = client.messages.create(
    model="claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
    max_tokens=1024,
    tools=tools,
    tool_choice={"type": "any"},  # Must call at least one tool
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Find products under $50"}]
)

Issue: Streaming Drops or Corruption

# Symptom: stream ends prematurely or text is garbled
# Cause: network interruption, proxy timeout, or large response

# Fix: implement reconnection with content tracking
def resilient_stream(client, **kwargs):
    """Stream with reconnection on failure."""
    collected_text = ""
    max_retries = 3

    for attempt in range(max_retries):
        try:
            with client.messages.stream(**kwargs) as stream:
                for text in stream.text_stream:
                    collected_text += text
                    yield text
                return  # Success
        except Exception as e:
            if attempt == max_retries - 1:
                raise
            # Note: Claude streams are NOT resumable
            # Must restart from beginning
            collected_text = ""
            print(f"Stream interrupted, retrying ({attempt + 1}/{max_retries})")

Issue: Unexpected Stop Reason

Stop ReasonMeaningAction
end_turnNormal completionExpected
max_tokensHit token limitIncrease max_tokens
stop_sequenceHit stop sequenceCheck stop_sequences array
tool_useWants to call a toolProcess tool call and continue
# Debug unexpected truncation
msg = client.messages.create(
    model="claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
    max_tokens=4096,  # Was it too low?
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": long_prompt}]
)
print(f"Stop reason: {msg.stop_reason}")
print(f"Output tokens: {msg.usage.output_tokens}")
print(f"Max tokens: 4096")
# If output_tokens == max_tokens, response was truncated

Issue: Response Quality Degradation

# Checklist for quality issues:
# 1. System prompt too long or contradictory?
# 2. Conversation history too noisy (too many turns)?
# 3. Wrong model for task complexity?
# 4. Temperature too high for deterministic tasks?

# Debug: log the full request for review
import json
request_params = {
    "model": model,
    "max_tokens": max_tokens,
    "system": system[:200] + "...",  # Truncated for logging
    "message_count": len(messages),
    "temperature": temperature,
}
print(f"Request config: {json.dumps(request_params, indent=2)}")

Diagnostic Curl Commands

# Test specific model availability
for model in claude-haiku-4-20250514 claude-sonnet-4-20250514 claude-opus-4-20250514; do
  echo -n "$model: "
  curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" https://api.anthropic.com/v1/messages \
    -H "x-api-key: $ANTHROPIC_API_KEY" \
    -H "anthropic-version: 2023-06-01" \
    -H "content-type: application/json" \
    -d "{\"model\":\"$model\",\"max_tokens\":8,\"messages\":[{\"role\":\"user\",\"content\":\"hi\"}]}"
  echo
done

Overview

This guide isolates difficult Claude API failures by testing one variable at a time: token budget, tool schema and choice, stream transport, stop reason, or prompt configuration. It complements the common status-code guide and should produce evidence that is safe to share with an operator.

Prerequisites

  • Use an approved sandbox workspace, a pinned model ID, and synthetic messages/tools that cannot access production data or perform side effects.
  • Have a bounded request timeout, retry cap, token-counting access where enabled, and a known-good baseline request for comparison.
  • Configure telemetry to retain request ID, model, token counts, stop reason, event counts, and latency only; redact prompts, completions, tool arguments, headers, and secrets.

Instructions

  1. Reproduce the smallest failing case in the sandbox and record a correlation ID. Change one input at a time, starting with token count and request shape.
  2. For context failures, count tokens before sending and trim or summarize using an explicit policy that keeps required system context. For tool failures, validate the schema and use a no-op tool before enabling any real action.
  3. For streaming failures, count received events and restart the complete non-resumable request with a bounded retry; deduplicate downstream presentation by correlation ID.
  4. Compare stop reason, usage, latency, and output-shape assertions against the known-good baseline. Run one canary against the approved environment before promotion.
  5. If the canary changes scope, output policy, retention, or error rate, halt and roll back the prompt/model/configuration change. Remove synthetic fixtures after the receipt is written.

Output

Return a troubleshooting receipt with correlation_id, hypothesis, changed variable, model, input/output token counts, stop reason, stream event counts, retry attempts, baseline comparison, canary status, rollback reference, and cleanup status. Keep all prompt, completion, tool-input, and credential fields redacted.

Error Handling

  • A token-counting call that fails is not evidence that the message call is safe; stop at the preflight gate and report the provider error without sending the full request.
  • Never treat a partial stream as a complete answer. Mark it incomplete, discard or quarantine it, and restart only when the operation is safe to repeat.
  • A tool-use response is untrusted input to the tool executor. Validate name and arguments against an allowlist, require approval for side effects, and reject unknown or malformed calls.
  • If a quality regression cannot be isolated, freeze promotion, preserve the redacted baseline comparison, and revert to the last known-good model/prompt pair.

Examples

Use a synthetic tool lookup_fixture whose only permitted input is fixture_id=demo-001; run the same prompt with and without tool_choice, and record tool_call_count, schema result, and side_effects=0. For a dropped stream, record events_received=17, complete=false, restart once with the same correlation policy, and expose only the final redacted result.

Resources

Next Steps

For load testing, see anth-load-scale.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Adding regression checks to an Abridge integration repository
  • Testing consent and note-release handling
  • Checking logs for sensitive data exposure
jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.9천2026년 10월 23일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • 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-marketplace2.9천2026년 10월 23일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • 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-marketplace2.9천2026년 10월 23일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • 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-marketplace2.9천2026년 10월 23일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Reviewing adoption after an Abridge rollout
  • Preparing evidence for a renewal decision
  • Comparing workflow outcomes across care settings
jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.9천2026년 10월 23일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Preparing reviewed evidence for an Abridge support case
  • Documenting redactions and excluded data
  • Collecting approved operational details for an incident
jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.9천2026년 10월 23일 업데이트

jeremylongshore의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고