CCARF Practice Question

Paper 3 · Question 44

D3 Claude Code Configuration & Workflows · Paper 3

[Scenario 5: Claude Code for Continuous Integration] You are integrating Claude Code into a CI/CD pipeline for automated code review, test generation, and pull-request feedback — designing prompts that produce actionable findings while minimizing false positives. You notice that when the same Claude Code session that generated a change also reviews it, the review is conspicuously gentle — missing issues an independent reviewer catches. Why, and what is the design implication?

• A.The model is being polite; instruct it to be harsher
• B.Reviews should always be performed by a larger model tier
• C.A session retains the reasoning context from generation, making it less likely to question its own decisions — so CI reviews should run in an independent instance without the generator's context
• D.Generation and review must run on different days to avoid contamination

Show answer & explanations

Correct answer: C

A: misreads a context effect as a personality setting

B: changes capability when the problem is contaminated context — the same model reviews well when independent

C: Session context isolation matters for review integrity: the generating session carries the rationale that produced the code, biasing it toward its own choices. An independent instance evaluates the code on its own terms.

D: adds superstition to a mechanism that is about context, not calendars

Related Claude Code Configuration & Workflows questions

More: Paper 3 · All practice questions