Instantly download CCAR-F updated real questions

Your pipeline runs:
PROMPT="You are a code reviewer."
PROMPT="$PROMPT Analyze the provided diff"
PROMPT="$PROMPT for bugs, security issues,"
PROMPT="$PROMPT and style violations."
claude -p \
--dangerously-skip-permissions \
--system-prompt "$PROMPT" < diff.txt
The reviews complete and return feedback, but Claude comments only on the piped diff--it never reads surrounding files in the checked-out repository to understand broader context, even when the diff modifies a function called by many other modules. Which change to the invocation will cause Claude to read related repository files while still applying your custom review instructions?

• A. Keep --system-prompt and add --allowedTools "Read, Glob, Grep" because non-interactive -p mode otherwise disables filesystem tools.
• B. Stop piping the diff through standard input and embed it in the prompt string so Claude Code treats the invocation as an agentic session rather than a stream-processing operation.
• C. Remove --system-prompt entirely and place the review instructions in a root-level CLAUDE.md because --system-prompt is incompatible with tool use under -p.
• D. Replace --system-prompt with --append-system-prompt so the review instructions are added to Claude Code's default prompt instead of overwriting its built-in file-reading and code-navigation guidance.

An application frequently repeats the same background instructions in every API request. What is a potential downside?

• A. Reduced model capability.
• B. Lower reliability.
• C. Higher token usage and cost.
• D. Increased hallucinations only.

An engineering team notices that Claude occasionally provides answers beyond the company's internal policy documents. They want responses to rely only on approved documentation whenever possible. Which solution is MOST appropriate?

• A. Increase temperature to 1.0
• B. Use Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)
• C. Shorten every prompt
• D. Disable system prompts

Your code-review prompts include both implementation changes and the corresponding test file, but the review comments fail to identify untested code paths. The model correctly flags functions that have no tests at all, but it fails to recognize when conditional branches or error-handling paths within tested functions lack coverage. What is the most effective way to improve branch- level gap detection without overcomplicating the pipeline?

• A. Add explicit instructions requiring Claude to enumerate every conditional branch and exception path, then verify that each path has a corresponding test assertion.
• B. Interleave the implementation and tests in the prompt, presenting each function immediately before its test cases.
• C. Implement a two-pass pipeline in which one model call extracts all conditional branches and another cross-references them against test assertions.
• D. Include few-shot examples showing code with an uncovered branch and the corresponding review comment identifying the missing test case.

Your multi-agent research pipeline crashed after processing12 of 28 documents. The web search agent had identified relevant sources, the document analyzer had partially completed extraction, and the synthesizer had begun pattern identification. You need to resume processing without repeating work or losing fidelity of prior findings. What state management approach best balances information fidelity with context efficiency when restoring agent state?

• A. Have each agent maintain its own persistent state file and reload it independently at the start of each session.
• B. Index all agent outputs in a shared vector store. When resuming, each agent queries the store using semantic search to retrieve relevant prior findings.
• C. Have each agent persist a structured export to a known location. On resume, the coordinator loads the manifest and injects relevant state into agent prompts.
• D. Persist the coordinator's conversation log containing all task delegations and responses, providing this to agents when resuming.