标签：#dynamodb

You add a sixth Lambda trigger to your OrderEvents table, deploy it, and within 20 minutes your SLA dashboard goes red. Latency on order writes jumps from 4ms to 40ms. The function itself is fine. The table is fine. The problem is that five other Lambdas are already hitting the same partition key on every write, and you just made it six. DynamoDB's internal partition throttling doesn't care that each function looks clean in isolation. This is an N+1 trigger problem, and your AI coding assistant cannot catch it. Not because it lacks intelligence, but because the fact that five Lambdas already target that table lives in your AWS account and your full codebase — not in the file your assistant has open. Infrawise · npm Why the LLM Can't See the Pattern When you ask Claude to write a new order processing Lambda, it reads the file you have open and generates code that looks correct — because in the context of that one file, it is correct. It doesn't know about ProcessRefundsLambda , NotifyFulfillmentLambda , SyncInventoryLambda , UpdateAnalyticsLambda , and AuditTrailLambda , all of which you wrote in previous sprints and which all write to the Orders table. This is a category of failure that model quality doesn't fix. A better model produces a more fluent explanation for why your latency spiked. The fact that five functions converge on the same table is a lookup, not a prediction. The source of truth is a combination of your code (which functions exist) and your infrastructure (what they access). Infrawise draws that boundary explicitly. It extracts the answer from your code using AST parsing and from your infrastructure using API calls, then hands that graph to the model as structured context — it never generates the answer. How Infrawise Traces Trigger Chains to the Same Table When Infrawise scans your repository, it uses ts-morph to walk every CallExpression in every source file. It's not searching for the string "DynamoDB" — it matches call structure against a known

You asked Claude Code to add pagination to your order history endpoint. It generated a clean function — listOrdersByUser() — using a DynamoDB Scan with a Limit parameter. It compiled. Tests passed. You shipped it. Three days later your AWS bill had a line item you didn't recognize: 47 million read capacity units consumed in 72 hours. The Orders table has 50M rows. Scan reads every one of them regardless of Limit — Limit only controls how many results come back, not how many items DynamoDB reads. Claude Code didn't know your table had 50M rows. It didn't know you had a GSI on userId . It guessed, and the guess was expensive. infrawise · npm What AI Assistants Don't Know About Your Infrastructure AI coding assistants read your source files. They understand function signatures, TypeScript types, and import chains. What they cannot see is the infrastructure those functions run against. When Claude Code looks at a file that calls dynamoClient.scan({ TableName: "Orders" }) , it has no idea that: The Orders table has 50M items There is already a GSI named userId-index on the userId attribute Three other functions are already using Query against that same GSI The Sessions table is accessed by 6 separate code paths, making it a hot partition candidate Without that context, the assistant fills the gap with generic patterns. It recommends Scan because it has no reason not to. It suggests adding a GSI on status because it doesn't know one exists. It writes SELECT * because it has no idea which columns are expensive to pull. This isn't a bug in the model. It's a missing input. The model was never given your infrastructure. What Happens When infrawise Is in the Loop infrawise statically analyzes your codebase, your DynamoDB tables, and your PostgreSQL schemas, then exposes that context to your editor through MCP. Claude Code gets 15 tools that answer questions like: which tables exist, what are their partition keys and sort keys, which GSIs are already defined, which functions ar