CCARF Practice Question

Paper 5 · Question 24

D3 Claude Code Configuration & Workflows · Paper 5

[Scenario: Claude Code for Continuous Integration] Your team wants to reduce API costs for automated analysis. Currently, synchronous Claude calls support two workflows: (1) a blocking pre-merge check that must complete before developers can merge, and (2) a technical debt report generated overnight for review the next morning. Your manager proposes moving both to the Message Batches API to save 50%. How should you evaluate this proposal?

• A.Move both to batch processing with fallback to synchronous calls if batches take too long.
• B.Move both workflows to batch processing with status polling to verify completion.
• C.Use batch processing only for technical debt reports; keep synchronous calls for pre-merge checks.
• D.Keep synchronous calls for both workflows to avoid issues with batch result ordering.

Show answer & explanations

Correct answer: C

A: A fallback still makes developers wait before you know the batch was too slow. A blocking check needs a synchronous call.

B: Polling does not add a latency guarantee. Pre-merge cannot depend on a queue that may take 24 hours.

C: Message Batches API processing can take up to 24 hours with no latency SLA, which is acceptable for overnight technical debt reports but unacceptable for blocking pre-merge checks where developers wait. This matches each workflow to the right API based on latency requirements.

D: Result order is not the problem. The pre-merge check is blocked on latency.

Related Claude Code Configuration & Workflows questions

More: Paper 5 · All practice questions