Anthropic CCAR-F - Claude Certified Architect – Foundations
Your pipeline reviews every pull request using a single API call with a static prompt containing the diff and the full text of each changed file; unchanged files are not included. Reviews are posted asynchronously and do not block pull-request creation. Developers report that reviews consistently miss bugs involving cross-file interactions—for example, a pull request renames a function’s parameters, but the review does not flag callers in other files that still use the old parameter names. Post-release analysis shows that cross-file bugs account for 35% of production incidents from reviewed pull requests. What is the most effective change to your review design?
You are building a structured data extraction system using Claude. The system extracts information from unstructured documents, validates the output using JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) schemas, and maintains high accuracy. It must handle edge cases gracefully and integrate with downstream systems.
The system needs to extract candidate information (name, contact details, skills, work experience, education) from uploaded resumes. The extracted data must strictly conform to a predefined JSON schema, as missing required fields or incorrect data types will cause downstream validation failures.
What is the most reliable approach to ensure Claude’s output consistently matches the schema?
You are using Claude Code to accelerate software development. Your team uses it for code generation, refactoring, debugging, and documentation. You need to integrate it into your development workflow with custom slash commands, CLAUDE.md configurations, and understand when to use plan mode vs direct execution.
Your team wants Claude to follow a detailed code review checklist (8 items covering API changes, test coverage, documentation, security, etc.) when reviewing pull requests. The team also uses Claude extensively for other tasks: writing new features, debugging production issues, and generating documentation. Currently, developers paste the checklist at the start of each review session.
Which approach best addresses this workflow need?
You are building a multi-agent research system using the Claude Agent SDK. A coordinator agent delegates to specialized subagents: one searches the web, one analyzes documents, one synthesizes findings, and one generates reports. The system researches topics and produces comprehensive, cited reports.
Production reviews reveal inconsistent handling of uncertainty in final reports. Sometimes conflicting subagent findings are synthesized into a single confident statement, losing important nuance, while other reports use excessive qualifications and become unhelpful. The web-search agent returns, “Industry analysts estimate a $50 billion market size, although methodologies vary.†The document-analysis agent returns, “A peer-reviewed study estimates $35 billion, with a ±$7 billion 95% confidence interval.†The coordinator either selects one estimate arbitrarily or produces a vague $35–$50 billion range.
What systematic approach best addresses this?
You are building developer-productivity tools using the Claude Agent SDK. The agent helps engineers explore unfamiliar codebases, understand legacy systems, generate boilerplate code, and automate repetitive tasks. It uses the built-in tools—Read, Write, Bash, Grep, and Glob—and integrates with Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers.
An engineer asks the agent to find every file in a monorepo that imports the @company/auth package to understand how authentication is used across services.
Which built-in tool is most appropriate for this task?
The coordinator provides detailed step-by-step instructions to the web-search subagent, specifying exact search queries, source priorities, and date filters. Production monitoring reveals three issues: (1) the subagent reports “insufficient results†instead of trying alternative approaches when the specified searches fail, (2) research quality drops for emerging topics that do not match expected patterns, and (3) the subagent rarely surfaces valuable tangential sources. What is the most effective way to improve subagent adaptability?
The web-search agent has gathered several relevant sources for a research topic. The document-analysis agent now needs to examine those sources. How does information typically flow between these two specialized subagents?
Your pipeline reviews approximately 200 database-migration scripts daily using the Message Batches API. Each request includes a shared 8,000-token system prompt containing migration-review guidelines and schema documentation, followed by an individual migration script. You added cache_control breakpoints to the shared system prompt in every request, but monitoring shows cache-hit rates of only 32%, with misses concentrated among requests processed later in the batch window. Which change addresses the root cause without adding sequential-processing latency?
You have configured the system so that all four subagents have access to the complete set of 18 tools. During testing, agents frequently call tools outside their specialization—the synthesis agent attempts web searches, and the report generator tries to analyze documents. What is the primary cause of this poor tool-selection behavior?
You are building developer productivity tools using the Claude Agent SDK. The agent helps engineers explore unfamiliar codebases, understand legacy systems, generate boilerplate code, and automate repetitive tasks. It uses the built-in tools (Read, Write, Bash, Grep, Glob) and integrates with Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers.
Your agent has spent 25 minutes exploring a game engine’s rendering subsystem—reading shader code, buffer management, and frame synchronization logic. An engineer now asks it to understand how the physics engine integrates with rendering for collision debug overlays. You notice recent responses reference “typical rendering patterns†rather than the specific VulkanPipeline and FrameGraph classes it discovered earlier.
What’s the most effective approach?
