Search this codebase for every call to the Anthropic Messages API.<br/><br/>For each one, report whether the thinking parameter is set, and if so to what value.<br/><br/>Output a table with three columns: file path, line number, current thinking configuration.<br/><br/>Flag every call that explicitly disables thinking. Opus 5.5 does not allow it - the parameter must be omitted or set to adaptive mode.<br/><br/>Do not change any code. Report only.
Search this codebase for every occurrence of tool_choice in an Anthropic API call.<br/><br/>Report each one with its file path, line number, and the value it is set to.<br/><br/>Flag every instance set to "any". Opus 5.5 rejects that value with a 400 error.<br/><br/>For each flagged instance, describe in one sentence what the code was trying to guarantee by forcing a tool call, so I can decide on a replacement. Do not propose the replacement yet.
This is the highest-risk check. Read carefully before answering.<br/><br/>Find every place in this codebase where assistant messages are stored, serialised, cached, or read back and resubmitted to the Anthropic API.<br/><br/>For each one, answer: does the stored payload include thinking blocks?<br/><br/>Opus 5.5 binds thinking blocks to a specific model and conversation. Replaying a stored block from another model or another conversation fails.<br/><br/>List every code path where a stored assistant turn could be resubmitted. Include conversation-resume features, retry logic, test fixtures and any message-history table.
Search this codebase and all configuration files for the string computer_20251124.<br/><br/>Report every occurrence with file path and line number.<br/><br/>Opus 5.5 rejects that tool version. The replacement is computer_toolset_20260801.<br/><br/>Also check for any hardcoded tool-version strings that follow the same date-suffix pattern, in case other tools are pinned to versions that will need updating.
You now have the results of four audits: disabled thinking, forced tool use, replayed thinking blocks, and the old computer-use tool.<br/><br/>Produce a single ordered migration checklist.<br/><br/>Sort by risk, highest first. For each item give: the file and line, what breaks, the specific change to make, and how to verify the fix.<br/><br/>Put anything involving stored or replayed assistant turns at the top regardless of count, because those failures appear only on specific runtime paths.<br/><br/>End with a list of the tests I should write before changing the model string.
Anthropic says Opus 5.5 costs 40% less to run than Opus 5 on typical workloads. The list price only fell 20% - from $5 in and $25 out to $4 and $20. The rest comes from cache reads at $0.20 per million (down 60%) and roughly 30% faster output generation.<br/><br/>I will paste a sample of my production API logs below.<br/><br/>Calculate: total input tokens, total output tokens, and what fraction of input tokens were cache reads.<br/><br/>Then compute my actual spend under Opus 5 pricing and under Opus 5.5 pricing, and give me the real percentage change for this traffic.<br/><br/>Do not use the 40% figure. Derive it.<br/><br/>LOGS:<br/>[paste]
Anthropic said Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5 arrive in the coming weeks. Opus 5.5 is available now at $4 in and $20 out per million tokens.<br/><br/>Here is my workload profile:<br/>- Requests per day: [fill in]<br/>- Average input tokens per request: [fill in]<br/>- Average output tokens per request: [fill in]<br/>- Share of input that is cacheable and reused: [fill in]<br/>- Tasks are: [bounded single-turn / multi-step agentic / long terminal sessions]<br/><br/>Tell me whether migrating to Opus 5.5 now is worth the engineering time, or whether I should wait for Sonnet 5.5.<br/><br/>Give me a number for the monthly saving and a number for the migration cost in engineering hours. If the payback is longer than three months, say so plainly.