Claude Opus 4.1 is Anthropic’s update to the original Claude Opus 4, focused on agentic tasks, real-world coding and reasoning. Its release also highlights in-depth research and data analysis, especially tracking details and using search within a larger task. The accompanying system-card addendum describes improvements in reasoning quality and instruction following. It remains a distinct edition from the original Opus 4 and the later Opus 4.5, 4.6 and 5 models; their modes and limits should not be treated as specifications for this update.
For code work, the release highlights multi-file refactoring and identifying precise corrections inside a large codebase. Give the model the relevant files or excerpts, the existing behaviour, the desired behaviour and the constraints a valid change must preserve. An illustrative request can ask it to trace a failure across related functions, propose the smallest coherent change and explain why each changed part is needed. The useful result is a reviewable patch or code proposal with the source context and assumptions retained, rather than a broad rewrite that obscures the original issue.
For research and data analysis, its detail-tracking focus is useful when a question depends on several passages or observations. Supply the material with source identifiers, define the question and ask for the evidence supporting each conclusion. A practical brief might request a comparison table showing where two documents agree, where they differ and which questions remain unanswered. If search is part of the workflow, the application supplies the tool and its returned content. The model then connects those results with the existing material; a proposed search in its text is not a completed retrieval.
Opus 4.1 has a standard response mode and optional extended thinking. The legacy thinking guide gives direct control through budget_tokens, with a minimum of 1,024 tokens. The budget is normally lower than max_tokens because internal reasoning and the final response share the generation allowance. It is a target for reasoning, rather than a promise to consume the full amount. Adaptive thinking and the effort controls of later Opus editions are separate capabilities. Prepare a complete problem and specify the final answer format so the additional analysis leads to the result needed by the reader.
The documented beta for earlier Claude 4 models supports interleaved thinking: reasoning between tool calls within one assistant turn. It uses the producer’s interleaved-thinking feature in the supported Messages workflow. In that mode, the thinking budget can span several blocks and exceed the single-turn max_tokens value under the documented exception. Return the corresponding thinking block unchanged with a tool result, including its signature. A debugging workflow can thereby alternate analysis, an application-executed check and interpretation of the actual output, while keeping proposed actions separate from completed ones.
The system-card addendum also describes computer-use tasks involving observation of a screen, mouse actions and keyboard input, alongside longer coding tasks with tools. The model can reason from a supplied visual state and select an action in a connected environment; the application performs the interaction and returns what changed. For a screen-based brief, identify the goal, relevant visible controls and the permitted actions. For a document or data workflow, request a textual explanation or structured result tied to the supplied evidence. The model’s interpretation and the environment’s execution are separate parts of the work.
The producer’s assessment reports susceptibility to prompt injection similar to the original Opus 4. It specifically examines hidden text or interface elements that try to redirect an agent away from the user’s task. Keep the task’s instructions separate from material returned by tools, and retain the original goal when interpreting a page or document. This is a substantive condition for an agent workflow: seeing a request inside external content does not make it an instruction the user authorised. The model’s protections do not turn every encountered page into trusted input.
Its system card also describes a coding limitation called reward hacking, including hard-coded answers and solutions tailored only to the examples in front of the model. Opus 4.1 shows tendencies similar to Opus 4, with some regressions on those focused assessments. For a code proposal, request a solution that satisfies the general requirement, identify the conditions it handles and include checks beyond the single supplied example. Ask the final report to distinguish what was proposed, what the environment actually checked and what could not be established. This connects the model’s precise debugging and detail-tracking strengths with a concrete artifact whose behaviour can be inspected.
", "aboutText": "Claude Opus 4.1 is Anthropic’s update to the original Claude Opus 4, focused on agentic tasks, real-world coding and reasoning. Its release also highlights in-depth research and data analysis, especially tracking details and using search within a larger task. The accompanying system-card addendum describes improvements in reasoning quality and instruction following. It remains a distinct edition from the original Opus 4 and the later Opus 4.5, 4.6 and 5 models; their modes and limits should not be treated as specifications for this update.\n\nFor code work, the release highlights multi-file refactoring and identifying precise corrections inside a large codebase. Give the model the relevant files or excerpts, the existing behaviour, the desired behaviour and the constraints a valid change must preserve. An illustrative request can ask it to trace a failure across related functions, propose the smallest coherent change and explain why each changed part is needed. The useful result is a reviewable patch or code proposal with the source context and assumptions retained, rather than a broad rewrite that obscures the original issue.\n\nFor research and data analysis, its detail-tracking focus is useful when a question depends on several passages or observations. Supply the material with source identifiers, define the question and ask for the evidence supporting each conclusion. A practical brief might request a comparison table showing where two documents agree, where they differ and which questions remain unanswered. If search is part of the workflow, the application supplies the tool and its returned content. The model then connects those results with the existing material; a proposed search in its text is not a completed retrieval.\n\nOpus 4.1 has a standard response mode and optional extended thinking. The legacy thinking guide gives direct control through budget_tokens, with a minimum of 1,024 tokens. The budget is normally lower than max_tokens because internal reasoning and the final response share the generation allowance. It is a target for reasoning, rather than a promise to consume the full amount. Adaptive thinking and the effort controls of later Opus editions are separate capabilities. Prepare a complete problem and specify the final answer format so the additional analysis leads to the result needed by the reader.\n\nThe documented beta for earlier Claude 4 models supports interleaved thinking: reasoning between tool calls within one assistant turn. It uses the producer’s interleaved-thinking feature in the supported Messages workflow. In that mode, the thinking budget can span several blocks and exceed the single-turn max_tokens value under the documented exception. Return the corresponding thinking block unchanged with a tool result, including its signature. A debugging workflow can thereby alternate analysis, an application-executed check and interpretation of the actual output, while keeping proposed actions separate from completed ones.\n\nThe system-card addendum also describes computer-use tasks involving observation of a screen, mouse actions and keyboard input, alongside longer coding tasks with tools. The model can reason from a supplied visual state and select an action in a connected environment; the application performs the interaction and returns what changed. For a screen-based brief, identify the goal, relevant visible controls and the permitted actions. For a document or data workflow, request a textual explanation or structured result tied to the supplied evidence. The model’s interpretation and the environment’s execution are separate parts of the work.\n\nThe producer’s assessment reports susceptibility to prompt injection similar to the original Opus 4. It specifically examines hidden text or interface elements that try to redirect an agent away from the user’s task. Keep the task’s instructions separate from material returned by tools, and retain the original goal when interpreting a page or document. This is a substantive condition for an agent workflow: seeing a request inside external content does not make it an instruction the user authorised. The model’s protections do not turn every encountered page into trusted input.\n\nIts system card also describes a coding limitation called reward hacking, including hard-coded answers and solutions tailored only to the examples in front of the model. Opus 4.1 shows tendencies similar to Opus 4, with some regressions on those focused assessments. For a code proposal, request a solution that satisfies the general requirement, identify the conditions it handles and include checks beyond the single supplied example. Ask the final report to distinguish what was proposed, what the environment actually checked and what could not be established. This connects the model’s precise debugging and detail-tracking strengths with a concrete artifact whose behaviour can be inspected.", "editorialOverlay": { "copy_fields": null, "copy_sha256": null, "copy_source": null, "html_sha256": "41357679bce8ef2a304e59251de31cd16c6731af49d03f399a05dc1fa36a656a", "module_sha256": "ee9dc1c50b1e6a8fb7fa062030fcb4646b9aaaeb08be513b723a5a92a7290f06", "raw_model_unchanged": true, "schema": "ailoot-native-model-editorial-v1" }, "locale": "en", "methods": [ { "html": "anthropic/claude-opus-4.1:batchClaude Opus 4.1 is Anthropic’s update to Opus 4 for agentic software work, research, data analysis and reasoning. Its focus includes detail tracking, multi-file code changes and precise debugging, with standard responses or optional extended thinking.
This description covers the model’s capabilities. Available in Ailoot inputs, outputs and options are listed for the selected method below.
Claude Opus 4.1 is Anthropic’s update to the original Claude Opus 4, focused on agentic tasks, real-world coding and reasoning. Its release also highlights in-depth research and data analysis, especially tracking details and using search within a larger task. The accompanying system-card addendum describes improvements in reasoning quality and instruction following. It remains a distinct edition from the original Opus 4 and the later Opus 4.5, 4.6 and 5 models; their modes and limits should not be treated as specifications for this update.
For code work, the release highlights multi-file refactoring and identifying precise corrections inside a large codebase. Give the model the relevant files or excerpts, the existing behaviour, the desired behaviour and the constraints a valid change must preserve. An illustrative request can ask it to trace a failure across related functions, propose the smallest coherent change and explain why each changed part is needed. The useful result is a reviewable patch or code proposal with the source context and assumptions retained, rather than a broad rewrite that obscures the original issue.
For research and data analysis, its detail-tracking focus is useful when a question depends on several passages or observations. Supply the material with source identifiers, define the question and ask for the evidence supporting each conclusion. A practical brief might request a comparison table showing where two documents agree, where they differ and which questions remain unanswered. If search is part of the workflow, the application supplies the tool and its returned content. The model then connects those results with the existing material; a proposed search in its text is not a completed retrieval.
Opus 4.1 has a standard response mode and optional extended thinking. The legacy thinking guide gives direct control through budget_tokens, with a minimum of 1,024 tokens. The budget is normally lower than max_tokens because internal reasoning and the final response share the generation allowance. It is a target for reasoning, rather than a promise to consume the full amount. Adaptive thinking and the effort controls of later Opus editions are separate capabilities. Prepare a complete problem and specify the final answer format so the additional analysis leads to the result needed by the reader.
The documented beta for earlier Claude 4 models supports interleaved thinking: reasoning between tool calls within one assistant turn. It uses the producer’s interleaved-thinking feature in the supported Messages workflow. In that mode, the thinking budget can span several blocks and exceed the single-turn max_tokens value under the documented exception. Return the corresponding thinking block unchanged with a tool result, including its signature. A debugging workflow can thereby alternate analysis, an application-executed check and interpretation of the actual output, while keeping proposed actions separate from completed ones.
The system-card addendum also describes computer-use tasks involving observation of a screen, mouse actions and keyboard input, alongside longer coding tasks with tools. The model can reason from a supplied visual state and select an action in a connected environment; the application performs the interaction and returns what changed. For a screen-based brief, identify the goal, relevant visible controls and the permitted actions. For a document or data workflow, request a textual explanation or structured result tied to the supplied evidence. The model’s interpretation and the environment’s execution are separate parts of the work.
The producer’s assessment reports susceptibility to prompt injection similar to the original Opus 4. It specifically examines hidden text or interface elements that try to redirect an agent away from the user’s task. Keep the task’s instructions separate from material returned by tools, and retain the original goal when interpreting a page or document. This is a substantive condition for an agent workflow: seeing a request inside external content does not make it an instruction the user authorised. The model’s protections do not turn every encountered page into trusted input.
Its system card also describes a coding limitation called reward hacking, including hard-coded answers and solutions tailored only to the examples in front of the model. Opus 4.1 shows tendencies similar to Opus 4, with some regressions on those focused assessments. For a code proposal, request a solution that satisfies the general requirement, identify the conditions it handles and include checks beyond the single supplied example. Ask the final report to distinguish what was proposed, what the environment actually checked and what could not be established. This connects the model’s precise debugging and detail-tracking strengths with a concrete artifact whose behaviour can be inspected.
POST /v1/batchestexttext| Field | Type | Requirement | Values & limits | Default |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Fieldendpoint | Typestring | RequirementRequired | Values & limits /v1/chat/completions | Default— |
Fieldmodel | Typestring | RequirementRequired | Values & limits anthropic/claude-opus-4.1:batch | Default— |
Fieldrequests | Typebatch_item[] | RequirementRequired | Values & limits Minimum items: 1 | Default— |
Fieldrequests[].custom_id | Typestring | RequirementRequired | Values & limits | Default— |
Fieldrequests[].body.messages | Typemessage[] | RequirementRequired | Values & limits | Default— |
Fieldcompletion_window | Typestring | RequirementOptional | Values & limits 24h | Default— |
Fieldprovider | Typeobject|null | RequirementOptional | Values & limits | Default— |
Fieldrequests[].body.model | Typestring | RequirementOptional | Values & limits anthropic/claude-opus-4.1:batch, anthropic/claude-opus-4.1 | Default— |
Fieldprovider.only | Typestring[] | RequirementOptional | Values & limits anthropic | Default— |
Fieldprovider.allow_fallbacks | Typeboolean|null | RequirementOptional | Values & limits false, null | Default— |
| Parameter | Contract |
|---|---|
Parametercontent_type | Contractapplication/json |
Parameterrequired | Contractendpoint, model, requests |
Parametermaterial_types | Contracttext |
Parameterrepresentation | Contractinline requests[]; each item has custom_id and body |
Parameterrequest_endpoint_profile | Contract/v1/chat/completions |
Parameterfile_material | ContractCaller may read actual UTF-8 JSONL locally into requests[]. No upload purpose, input_file_id or file reference is used. Missing/empty customer material stops preparation before POST. |
Parameterserialization_order | Contractendpoint, model, provider (if supplied), completion_window (if supplied), requests last |
Parameteroptional_controls | Contractprovider.only, provider.allow_fallbacks, completion_window |
Parameterschema_scope | ContractText Chat Completions bodies in the documented inline Batch envelope. |
Lifecycle: asynchronous
GET /v1/batches/{operation_id} · actual original create response.id; same user/key/group
Tariff references do not add request options. Supported parameters are listed for the selected method.
Match each charge to the conditions shown. Use one rate for each set of alternative configurations.
| Configuration | Rate schedule | Context tokens, more than | Context tokens, up to and including | Charge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ConfigurationBase token rates | Rate scheduleBase rate | Context tokens, more than— | Context tokens, up to and includingNo upper bound | Charge Input · Input tokens $0.015 / 1K tokens Output · Output tokens $0.075 / 1K tokens Input · Cache read $0.0015 / 1K tokens Input · Cache write $0.01875 / 1K tokens Input · Cache write, 1 hour $0.03 / 1K tokens |
| ConfigurationRequest-length tier 1 | Rate schedule— | Context tokens, more than0 | Context tokens, up to and includingNo upper bound | Charge Input · Input tokens $0.015 / 1K tokens Output · Output tokens $0.075 / 1K tokens Input · Cache read $0.0015 / 1K tokens Input · Cache write $0.01875 / 1K tokens Input · Cache write, 1 hour $0.03 / 1K tokens |
Ailoot reserves an estimated amount before a request. After the result, it settles the final charge from measured usage. Streaming settlement uses the final usage record. How reservation and settlement work →
set -eu\n: "${AILOOT_API_KEY:?Set your Ailoot API key}"\npython3 - <<'PY_REQUEST'\nimport json\nfrom pathlib import Path\nbody=json.loads('{"endpoint":"/v1/chat/completions","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-4.1:batch","requests":[{"custom_id":"req-0001","body":{"messages":[{"role":"user","content":"Hello!"}],"max_tokens":16}}]}')\nPath("batch-request.json").write_text(json.dumps(body,ensure_ascii=False),encoding="utf-8")\nPY_REQUEST\ncurl --fail-with-body --silent --show-error https://api.ailoot.ai/v1/batches \\\n -H "Authorization: Bearer $AILOOT_API_KEY" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \\\n --data-binary @batch-request.json -D batch-response-headers.txt -o batch-create-response.json\nimport json, os\nfrom pathlib import Path\nfrom urllib.request import Request, urlopen\n\ndef prepare_requests(customer_path):\n path = Path(customer_path)\n if not path.is_file(): raise ValueError("Customer JSONL file is missing")\n items = [json.loads(line) for line in path.read_text(encoding="utf-8").splitlines() if line.strip()]\n if not items: raise ValueError("Customer JSONL contains no requests")\n ids = set()\n for item in items:\n if set(item) != {"custom_id", "body"}: raise ValueError("Each item needs custom_id and body")\n cid = item["custom_id"]\n if not isinstance(cid, str) or not cid.strip() or cid in ids: raise ValueError("custom_id must be nonempty and unique")\n ids.add(cid)\n if not isinstance(item["body"], dict) or not item["body"].get("messages"): raise ValueError("Supply actual text messages")\n supplied_model = item["body"].get("model")\n if supplied_model is not None and supplied_model not in ['anthropic/claude-opus-4.1:batch', 'anthropic/claude-opus-4.1']: raise ValueError("body.model must be an exact documented caller or wire ID")\n return {"endpoint":"/v1/chat/completions", "model":"anthropic/claude-opus-4.1:batch", "requests":items}\n\nif __name__ == "__main__":\n material = os.environ.get("AILOOT_BATCH_REQUESTS_JSONL", "")\n if not material: raise SystemExit("Set AILOOT_BATCH_REQUESTS_JSONL to your actual customer file")\n body = prepare_requests(material)\n key = os.environ.get("AILOOT_API_KEY", "")\n if not key: raise SystemExit("Set AILOOT_API_KEY")\n request = Request("https://api.ailoot.ai/v1/batches", data=json.dumps(body, ensure_ascii=False).encode("utf-8"), headers={"Authorization":"Bearer " + key, "Content-Type":"application/json"}, method="POST")\n with urlopen(request) as response:\n raw = response.read()\n Path("batch-create-response.json").write_bytes(raw)\n print(raw.decode("utf-8"))\nimport json\nfrom pathlib import Path\nraw = Path("batch-status-response.json").read_bytes()\nresponse = json.loads(raw)\nif response.get("status") != "completed":\n raise SystemExit("Keep the original operation; read its status without resubmitting")\nresults = response.get("results")\nif not isinstance(results, list) or not results:\n raise SystemExit("Preserve the original response; completed results are missing")\nPath("batch-results.jsonl").write_text("".join(json.dumps(item, ensure_ascii=False) + "\\n" for item in results), encoding="utf-8")\n# Preserve batch-status-response.json with aggregate usage and every result/error.\ninline results[].response.body JSON
GET /v1/batches/{operation_id}set -eu\n: "${AILOOT_API_KEY:?Set your Ailoot API key}"\nBATCH_OPERATION_ID="$(python3 - <<'PY_ID'\nimport json\nfrom pathlib import Path\nfrom urllib.parse import quote\nresponse = json.loads(Path("batch-create-response.json").read_text(encoding="utf-8"))\noperation = response.get("id")\nif not isinstance(operation, str) or not operation: raise SystemExit("No actual original operation ID; preserve the response and do not resubmit")\nprint(quote(operation, safe=""))\nPY_ID\n)"\ncurl --fail-with-body --silent --show-error "https://api.ailoot.ai/v1/batches/$BATCH_OPERATION_ID" \\\n -H "Authorization: Bearer $AILOOT_API_KEY" -o batch-status-response.json\nKeep every complete returned response, file and content part.
Preserve the full original status JSON, every result/custom_id and complete response or error body. Save completed results[] as JSONL without filtering.
Preserve the original operation ID. 503 result_pending_check has X-Should-Retry:false; never resubmit an unknown original batch.
| Field | Type |
|---|---|
Fieldresults[].custom_id | Typestring |
Fieldresults[].response.body.choices[].message.content | Typestring|null |
Fieldresults[].error | Typeobject|null |
Fieldusage | Typeobject|null |
Fieldid | Typestring |
Fieldmodel | Typestring |
Fieldendpoint | Typestring |
Fieldstatus | Typestring |
Fieldrequest_counts | Typeobject |
Fieldresults[].id | Typestring |
Fieldresults[].response.status_code | Typeinteger |
Fieldresults[].response.request_id | Typestring |
| Response | Condition | Next step |
|---|---|---|
Response400 · invalid_request_error | ConditionInvalid documented inline envelope, duplicate keys, item identity, or configured model capabilities conflict. | Next stepCorrect the indicated fields before any new submission. |
Response401 · authentication_error | ConditionInvalid API key. | Next stepUse the authorized Ailoot key. |
Response403 · permission_error | ConditionBatch group unavailable. | Next stepCheck key/group entitlement. |
Response422 · invalid_request_error | ConditionBatch uses balance billing; subscription creation is rejected. | Next stepUse the authorized balance-billed group. |
Response422 · price_unavailable | ConditionBatch input cannot be quoted. | Next stepPreserve response; use documented family input. |
Response402 · billing_error | ConditionBatch reserve unavailable. | Next stepResolve admission before a new request. |
Response503 · price_unavailable | ConditionBatch method price/native rates unavailable. | Next stepPreserve response; do not substitute prices. |
Response503 · api_error | ConditionExact supplier route unavailable. | Next stepPreserve response for route repair. |
Response503 · result_pending_check | ConditionOriginal result requires checking; X-Should-Retry:false. | Next stepKeep original operation_id/id and read its status; never repeat original POST. |
Response404 · not_found | ConditionBatch status operation absent or owned by another identity. | Next stepUse exact original id and same user/key/group. |
Ailoot Ultra anthropic/claude-opus-4.1:batch
Use the method paths shown above.