CCARF Practice Question

Paper 5 · Question 13

D1 Agentic Architecture & Orchestration · Paper 5

[Scenario: Claude Code for Continuous Integration] Your team uses Claude Code for generating code suggestions, but you notice a pattern: non-obvious issues—performance optimizations that break edge cases, cleanups that unexpectedly change behavior—are only caught when another team member reviews the PR. Claude’s reasoning during generation shows it considered these cases but concluded its approach was correct. Which approach directly addresses the root cause of this self-check limitation? Which approach directly addresses the root cause?

• A.Run a second independent instance of Claude Code to review the changes without access to the generator’s reasoning.
• B.Enable extended thinking mode for the generation stage to allow more thorough deliberation before producing suggestions.
• C.Add explicit self-review instructions to the generation prompt asking Claude to critique its own suggestions before finalizing output.
• D.Include full test files and documentation in prompt context so Claude better understands expected behavior during generation.

Show answer & explanations

Correct answer: A

A: A second independent Claude Code instance without access to the generator’s reasoning directly addresses the root cause by avoiding confirmation bias. This “fresh eyes” perspective mirrors human peer review, where another reviewer catches issues the author rationalized.

B: Longer thinking in the same session still uses the reasoning that already approved the risky change.

C: Asking the generator to critique itself reuses the conclusion the human reviewer is catching.

D: More files in the generation prompt can help the author. They do not create a reviewer who never saw that justification.

Related Agentic Architecture & Orchestration questions

More: Paper 5 · All practice questions