Native vs. Anthropic-Compat

​

Surface comparison

​

When to use native (/v1/ai/chat)

• Are building a new integration and want full HASP capabilities from the start.
• Need PHI metadata in responses (entity types detected, redaction count).
• Want the HASP error vocabulary (PHI_BLOCKED, BAA_REQUIRED, etc.) rather than the Anthropic mapping.
• Are building tooling against the audit trail and want the richest response envelope.

​

When to use Anthropic-compat (/v1/messages)

• Already have code using @anthropic-ai/sdk and want HASP compliance with zero code changes.
• Are evaluating HASP as a drop-in replacement for direct Anthropic calls.
• Are building a prototype and want to defer the native migration.

​

Migrating from compat to native

- import Anthropic from '@anthropic-ai/sdk';
- const client = new Anthropic({ baseURL: 'https://api.usehasp.com', apiKey: process.env.HASP_API_KEY });
- const msg = await client.messages.create({ model: 'claude-sonnet-4-6', ... });
+ // The native surface is REST — call it directly
+ const res = await fetch('https://api.usehasp.com/v1/ai/chat', {
+   method: 'POST',
+   headers: { Authorization: `Bearer ${process.env.HASP_API_KEY}`, 'Content-Type': 'application/json' },
+   body: JSON.stringify({ model: 'claude-sonnet-4-6', messages: [...] }),
+ });

​

What’s the same on both surfaces

• All compliance checks run. PHI scanning, BAA validation, credit checks, and audit logging are identical on both surfaces. You cannot bypass compliance by using the compat endpoint.
• Same API keys. The same hasp_api_live_* key works on both surfaces with the ai:chat scope.
• Same model identifiers. The HASP model name (claude-sonnet-4-6) is the same on both.
• Same request_id. The id field on compat responses and the meta.request_id on native responses resolve to the same record via GET /v1/ai/messages/{id}.