CCARF Practice Question

Paper 5 · Question 20

D4 Prompt Engineering & Structured Output · Paper 5

[Scenario: Claude Code for Continuous Integration] After an initial automated review identifies 12 findings, a developer pushes new commits to address issues. Re-running review produces 8 findings, but developers report that 5 duplicate previous comments on code that was already fixed in the new commits. What is the most effective way to eliminate this redundant feedback while maintaining thoroughness? What is the most effective way to eliminate redundant feedback?

• A.Run review only when the PR is created and in the final pre-merge state, skipping intermediate commits.
• B.Add a post-processing filter that removes findings that match previous ones by file paths and issue descriptions before posting comments.
• C.Restrict review scope to files changed in the most recent push, excluding files from earlier commits.
• D.Include previous review findings in context and instruct Claude to report only new or still-unresolved issues.

Show answer & explanations

Correct answer: D

A: Skipping intermediate commits withholds feedback, and the final run can still repeat old comments if those findings are not in context.

B: Matching on file path and wording drops a rephrased comment and can keep one about a bug the new commits did not fix.

C: Reviewing only the latest push misses interactions with files that were not touched again.

D: Including prior review findings in context lets Claude distinguish new problems from those already addressed in recent commits. This preserves review thoroughness while using Claude’s reasoning to avoid redundant feedback on fixed code.

Related Prompt Engineering & Structured Output questions

More: Paper 5 · All practice questions