Insurance: Subrogation Packet Assembly with Claude Code: Build vs Buy Decision
A production playbook for subrogation packet assembly in insurance operations using Claude Code: build vs buy decision, run-scoped inputs, logs, typed results, and artifacts.
Audience: Insurance recovery teams
The problem
Insurance recovery teams need subrogation packet assembly to run repeatedly against claim records, repair invoices, police reports, photos, and correspondence. In insurance operations, the pain is not one good answer; it is repeatability, auditability, exception handling, and evidence that survives handoff.
Implementation path
Compare the work required to operate subrogation packet assembly: sandbox lifecycle, provider credentials, input injection, logs, artifact delivery, retries, and result validation.
Tradeoffs and failure modes
Building gives total control; buying the runtime compresses the path to a customer-facing workflow. For subrogation packet assembly, the practical test is whether a second run can be debugged, retried, and consumed by a product without reading the raw agent transcript.
Decision table
Build internally if you need bespoke infrastructure primitives.
Use Argo if you need subrogation packet assembly as a product workflow: inputs, Claude Code, logs, result JSON, and artifacts.
Use both if a specialized sandbox must sit behind a stable run contract.
Run this on Argo