본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

anth-known-pitfalls

Review Anthropic API integrations for common mistakes in SDK imports, request fields, response parsing, tool results, retries, and token limits. Use synthetic test cases to identify issues and produce a redacted review summary without exposing prompts, customer data, or credentials.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Identify and avoid common Claude API anti-patterns and integration mistakes. Use when reviewing code, onboarding developers, or debugging subtle issues with Anthropic integrations. Trigger with phrases like "anthropic pitfalls", "claude anti-patterns", "claude mistakes", "anthropic common issues", "claude gotchas".

연동 도구OpenAI

실행 점수 미검증

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Reviewing a Claude API integration
  • Onboarding developers to Anthropic API differences
  • Debugging request or response handling errors
  • Checking tool calls, retries, and token limits

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md8.3 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Anthropic Known Pitfalls

Overview

This reference is a review aid for common Anthropic API integration mistakes. Apply the checks to the actual SDK/API version in use and confirm changing behavior against Anthropic’s current documentation before making a compatibility claim.

Pitfall 1: Wrong Import / Class Name

# WRONG — common mistake from OpenAI muscle memory
from anthropic import AnthropicClient  # Does not exist

# CORRECT
import anthropic
client = anthropic.Anthropic()
// WRONG
import { Anthropic } from '@anthropic-ai/sdk';

// CORRECT
import Anthropic from '@anthropic-ai/sdk';  // Default export

Pitfall 2: Forgetting max_tokens (Required)

# WRONG — max_tokens is REQUIRED, unlike OpenAI
msg = client.messages.create(
    model="claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}]
)  # Error: max_tokens is required

# CORRECT
msg = client.messages.create(
    model="claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
    max_tokens=1024,  # Always specify
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}]
)

Pitfall 3: System Prompt in Messages Array

# WRONG — putting system message in messages array (OpenAI pattern)
messages = [
    {"role": "system", "content": "You are helpful."},  # Will cause error
    {"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}
]

# CORRECT — use the system parameter
msg = client.messages.create(
    model="claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
    max_tokens=1024,
    system="You are helpful.",  # Separate parameter
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}]
)

Pitfall 4: Accessing Response Wrong

# WRONG — OpenAI response pattern
text = response.choices[0].message.content  # AttributeError

# CORRECT — Anthropic response pattern
text = response.content[0].text  # content is array of blocks

# SAFER — handle multiple content blocks
text_blocks = [b.text for b in response.content if b.type == "text"]
text = "\n".join(text_blocks)

Pitfall 5: Ignoring Stop Reason

# WRONG — assuming response is always complete
text = msg.content[0].text  # Might be truncated!

# CORRECT — check stop_reason
if msg.stop_reason == "max_tokens":
    print("WARNING: Response was truncated. Increase max_tokens.")
elif msg.stop_reason == "tool_use":
    print("Claude wants to call a tool — process tool_use blocks")
elif msg.stop_reason == "end_turn":
    print("Complete response")

Pitfall 6: Not Handling tool_use_id Properly

# WRONG — fabricating tool_use_id
tool_results = [{"type": "tool_result", "tool_use_id": "some-id", "content": "..."}]

# CORRECT — use the exact ID from Claude's response
for block in response.content:
    if block.type == "tool_use":
        result = execute_tool(block.name, block.input)
        tool_results.append({
            "type": "tool_result",
            "tool_use_id": block.id,  # Must match exactly
            "content": result
        })

Pitfall 7: Hardcoding Model IDs Without Versioning

# RISKY — model aliases may change behavior
model = "claude-3-5-sonnet"  # Alias, might point to different version

# BETTER — use dated version for reproducibility
model = "claude-sonnet-4-20250514"  # Pinned version

Pitfall 8: Not Using SDK Auto-Retry

# UNNECESSARY — writing custom retry logic for 429/5xx
for attempt in range(3):
    try:
        msg = client.messages.create(...)
        break
    except Exception:
        time.sleep(2 ** attempt)

# BETTER — SDK handles this automatically
client = anthropic.Anthropic(max_retries=5)  # Built-in exponential backoff
msg = client.messages.create(...)  # Auto-retries 429 and 5xx

Pitfall 9: Inflated max_tokens

# WASTEFUL — setting max_tokens higher than needed
# Doesn't cost more tokens, but increases latency
msg = client.messages.create(
    model="claude-sonnet-4-20250514",
    max_tokens=200000,  # Way more than needed for a classification
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Classify: positive or negative?"}]
)

# BETTER — right-size for the task
msg = client.messages.create(
    model="claude-haiku-4-20250514",  # Use Haiku for classification
    max_tokens=16,  # Only need one word
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Classify: positive or negative?"}]
)

Pitfall 10: No Cost Tracking

# Every response includes usage data — track it
msg = client.messages.create(...)
cost = (msg.usage.input_tokens * 3.0 + msg.usage.output_tokens * 15.0) / 1_000_000
# Log cost per request to catch runaway spend early

Quick Reference: Anthropic vs OpenAI Differences

FeatureOpenAIAnthropic
max_tokensOptionalRequired
System promptIn messages arraysystem parameter
Response text.choices[0].message.content.content[0].text
Default importNamed exportDefault export
Auto-retryNoYes (configurable)
StreamingYields chunksSSE events

Prerequisites

  • Identify the SDK/runtime versions, pinned model IDs, request paths, tool definitions, data classification, and owner of the integration.
  • Use a sandbox workspace, synthetic prompts, least-privileged credentials, and a redaction policy for review and reproduction; do not paste production content or keys into diagnostics.
  • Define acceptance checks for authentication, request shape, stop reasons, tool IDs, retries, token budgets, cost, and logging hygiene.

Instructions

  1. Review imports, request construction, response parsing, model/version pins, retry behavior, and token limits against the installed SDK and official API reference.
  2. Exercise each suspected pitfall with synthetic fixtures, including malformed requests, truncated output, tool calls, 429/5xx, timeout, and duplicate retry cases. Assert no sensitive content appears in logs or receipts.
  3. Check that authentication comes from the secret manager, permissions and model/workspace scope are enforced, and retries are bounded and safe for the operation.
  4. Canary corrective changes in an isolated workspace and compare response-shape, latency, cost, and error aggregates with the baseline. Require approval before production rollout.
  5. For a failed gate, quarantine affected output, restore the prior revision, revoke temporary access if needed, and record a redacted finding with the documented remediation.

Output

Produce a pitfall-review receipt listing SDK/API versions, checks run, synthetic fixture classes, findings and severity, response-shape/error aggregates, logging/redaction result, canary and approval state, and rollback reference. Exclude prompt/response text, personal data, member information, and credentials.

Error Handling

FindingResponse
Request-shape or import mismatchPin the compatible SDK, update the code under test, and rerun contract tests.
Missing/incorrect stop or tool handlingReject or quarantine the result; use the exact response metadata and tool-use ID.
Unbounded retry or inflated token budgetApply bounded retry/idempotency controls and a role/budget-specific token cap.
Content or secret appears in telemetryStop the canary, rotate exposed credentials if applicable, purge according to retention policy, and fix the redaction boundary.

Examples

Run a sandbox review using fixture-tool-call-001 and fixture-truncated-002, assert tool_use_id_match=1; stop_reason_checked=1; content_logged=0, and emit pitfalls=0; canary=internal; rollback=integration-v1. Never reproduce a failure with a live customer prompt.

Resources

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