CCARF Practice Question

Paper 5 · Question 22

D4 Prompt Engineering & Structured Output · Paper 5

[Scenario: Claude Code for Continuous Integration] A pull request changes 14 files in an inventory tracking module. A single-pass review that analyzes all files together produces inconsistent results: detailed feedback on some files but shallow comments on others, missed obvious bugs, and contradictory feedback (a pattern is flagged in one file but identical code is approved in another file in the same PR). How should you restructure the review?

• A.Run three independent full-PR review passes and flag only issues that appear in at least two of the three runs.
• B.Split into focused passes: review each file individually for local issues, then run a separate integration-oriented pass to examine cross-file data flows.
• C.Require developers to split large PRs into smaller submissions of 3–4 files before running automated review.
• D.Switch to a larger model with a bigger context window so it can pay sufficient attention to all 14 files in one pass.

Show answer & explanations

Correct answer: B

A: Keeping only issues that two of three full-PR passes agree on drops real bugs one pass caught, and each pass still has the same attention problem.

B: Focused per-file passes address the root cause—attention dilution—by ensuring consistent depth and reliable local issue detection. A separate integration-oriented pass then covers cross-file concerns such as dependency and data-flow interactions.

C: Requiring smaller PRs pushes the limitation onto developers and does not review the 14-file change as it stands.

D: A larger context window does not fix uneven attention across many files in one pass.

Related Prompt Engineering & Structured Output questions

More: Paper 5 · All practice questions