CCARF Practice Question

Paper 3 · Question 18

D1 Agentic Architecture & Orchestration · Paper 3

[Scenario 2: Code Generation with Claude Code] Your team uses Claude Code for code generation, refactoring, debugging, and documentation, integrated into daily development with custom slash commands and CLAUDE.md configuration — and you must judge when plan mode beats direct execution. You want to resume last week's refactoring session, but since then the team has merged substantial changes across the files it analyzed, so most of its tool results now describe code that no longer exists. What is the reliable approach?

• A.Start a new session seeded with a structured summary of the prior conclusions — stale tool results make resumption unreliable, since the model will reason from outdated file contents
• B.Resume the session as-is; Claude automatically detects file changes
• C.Resume the session and increase max_tokens to accommodate the confusion
• D.Never resume any session; always start from zero exploration

Show answer & explanations

Correct answer: A

A: The resumption tradeoff: resume when prior context is mostly valid; start fresh with an injected summary when tool results have gone stale. Heavily changed files put this squarely in the second case — keep the conclusions, discard the outdated evidence.

B: assumes an automatic re-verification that does not happen — stale results sit in context as if true

C: spends tokens on a correctness problem

D: throws away a valid technique — for minor changes, resuming and informing the session which files changed works well

Related Agentic Architecture & Orchestration questions

More: Paper 3 · All practice questions