CCARF Practice Question

Paper 3 · Question 48

D4 Prompt Engineering & Structured Output · 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. The reviewer keeps flagging your codebase's accepted idiomatic patterns (e.g., intentional fall-throughs with comments) as bugs, while your detailed prose instructions haven't fixed it. What is the most effective addition?

• A.A rule that anything containing a comment is acceptable
• B.An instruction to “use good judgment about idioms”
• C.Few-shot examples distinguishing the accepted patterns from genuine issues — showing the reasoning why each is or isn't reportable — so the model generalizes the judgment to novel cases
• D.A ban on reviewing files containing any idiomatic pattern

Show answer & explanations

Correct answer: C

A: creates a trivially wrong rule any commented bug defeats

B: restates the goal without transferring the judgment

C: When prose fails to convey a judgment boundary, examples carry it: contrasted acceptable-versus-genuine cases with reasoning teach a distinction the model can generalize — the documented strength of few-shot prompting for false-positive reduction.

D: exempts exactly the code that most needs reviewing

Related Prompt Engineering & Structured Output questions

More: Paper 3 · All practice questions