Claude · Anthropic
Claude integration in your own workflows
Claude integration means your system calls Anthropic’s API, typically where the input is long — contracts, case files, mail threads — and you want a sober draft back in a field. In the product Claude is an engine, not a brand the customer should see. Swap the engine without swapping the screen. Long input, fewer hallucinations in the summary and a dry tone are where Claude often fits better than GPT. GDPR does not change with the model: key, cap, log, minimisation and a human in the loop on everything that leaves the building.
You pick the model per feature. The customer sees “Draft”. The same thin engine layer as OpenAI and Gemini, so you can A/B without rewriting admin. AI as a service.
Where Claude often fits better than GPT
- Long input where you want fewer hallucinations in the summary
- Internal tools where the tone must stay dry and precise
- “Read the 40 pages and give me only the deviations”
Same architecture
- Key, cap, log, minimisation
- A human on everything that leaves
- Prompt and tools live with you
What is different
- Context window and price per token
- Tone and skill on long files
- Processor and region
Prompt
Menneske godkender før udsendelse
What to do now
Find one document you currently summarise by hand. That is the first feature. Get a quote — or see pricing if you already know AI is one of the integrations in the package.
FAQ about Claude integration
Should the customer pick the model?
No. You pick the model per feature. The customer sees “Draft”.
Is Claude better at Danish?
Test on your language and your case types. Marketing lines about language are not a benchmark.
Can we switch to GPT later?
Yes, if you kept prompt and UI out of the vendor SDK. The engine is configuration.
May the whole contract go with the call?
Only what the job requires. Minimisation is the product, not an annex to the DPA.