Question 20
CCA-F is a newly released exam. These practice questions reflect our best current understanding — the exact wording and question formats may change in the live exam until the certification matures. Use them to learn the concepts, not to memorize.
Scenario: Claude Code for Continuous Integration - Your automated reviews find real issues, but developers report the feedback is not actionable. Findings include phrases like “complex ticket routing logic” or “potential null pointer” without specifying what exactly to change. When you add detailed instructions like “always include concrete fix suggestions,” the model still produces inconsistent output—sometimes detailed, sometimes vague. Which prompting technique most reliably produces consistently actionable feedback? Which prompting technique is most reliable?
- AFurther refine instructions with more explicit requirements for each part of the feedback format (location, issue, severity, proposed fix).
- BExpand the context window to include more surrounding codebase so the model has enough information to propose concrete fixes.
- CImplement a two-pass approach where one prompt identifies issues and a second generates fixes, allowing specialization.
- DAdd 3–4 few-shot examples showing the exact required format: identified issue, location in code, concrete fix suggestion.