CCARF Practice Question

Paper 5 · Question 25

D4 Prompt Engineering & Structured Output · Paper 5

[Scenario: Code Generation with Claude Code] You asked Claude Code to implement a function that transforms API responses into an internal normalized format. After two iterations, the output structure still doesn’t match expectations—some fields are nested differently and timestamps are formatted incorrectly. You described requirements in prose, but Claude interprets them differently each time. Which approach is most effective for the next iteration?

• A.Write a JSON schema describing the expected output structure and validate Claude’s output against it after each iteration.
• B.Provide 2–3 concrete input-output examples showing the expected transformation for representative API responses.
• C.Rewrite requirements with more technical precision, specifying exact field mappings, nesting rules, and timestamp format strings.
• D.Ask Claude to explain its current understanding of the requirements to identify where interpretations diverge.

Show answer & explanations

Correct answer: B

A: A schema can reject a bad shape after the fact. It does not show how a representative payload should be mapped, which is where the interpretation is drifting.

B: Concrete input-output examples remove ambiguity inherent in prose descriptions by showing Claude the exact expected transformation results. This directly addresses the root cause—misinterpretation of textual requirements—by providing unambiguous patterns for field nesting and timestamp formatting.

C: Tighter prose is what already failed. The model is re-reading the words differently each iteration.

D: A restatement can show the mismatch. It does not give an unambiguous target for the next attempt.

Related Prompt Engineering & Structured Output questions

More: Paper 5 · All practice questions