Pre-Winter Sale Special Limited Time 70% Discount Offer - Ends in 0d 00h 00m 00s - Coupon code: force70

Anthropic Claude Certified Architect – Foundations CCAR-F Question # 10 Topic 2 Discussion

Anthropic Claude Certified Architect – Foundations CCAR-F Question # 10 Topic 2 Discussion

CCAR-F Exam Topic 2 Question 10 Discussion:
Question #: 10
Topic #: 2

You are integrating Claude Code into your Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) pipeline. The system runs automated code reviews, generates test cases, and provides feedback on pull requests. You need to design prompts that provide actionable feedback and minimize false positives.

Your automated reviewer uses a single prompt covering security issues, API design, and business-logic correctness. Your evaluation suite shows strong recall for API-design findings at 82% but poor recall for business-logic edge cases in quiz scoring at 34%. When you add few-shot examples of logic bugs to the prompt, logic recall improves to 41%, but API-design recall drops to 68%.

How should you address this trade-off to improve detection across both categories?


A.

Split the review into separate focused prompts—one for security and API design and another for business logic—each with dedicated examples, and then consolidate the findings before posting.


B.

Replace the few-shot examples with a detailed checklist of specific logic edge cases to verify, such as division by zero in score calculations and boundary conditions in grading thresholds.


C.

Upgrade to a more capable model tier because its stronger reasoning will handle both concern types in one prompt and eliminate the recall trade-off.


D.

Provide the full repository as context instead of only the changed files and surrounding code, giving the model deeper visibility into business-logic patterns.


Get Premium CCAR-F Questions

Contribute your Thoughts:


Chosen Answer:
This is a voting comment (?). It is better to Upvote an existing comment if you don't have anything to add.