CCARF Practice Question

Paper 5 · Question 33

D5 Context Management & Reliability · Paper 5

[Scenario: Code Generation with Claude Code] You’re adding error-handling wrappers around external API calls across a 120-file codebase. The work has three phases: (1) discover all call sites and patterns, (2) collaboratively design the error-handling approach, and (3) implement wrappers consistently. In Phase 1, Claude generates large output listing hundreds of call sites with context, quickly filling the context window before discovery finishes. Which approach is most effective to complete the task while maintaining implementation consistency?

• A.Use an Explore subagent for Phase 1 to isolate verbose discovery output and return a summary, then continue Phases 2–3 in the main conversation.
• B.Do all phases in the main conversation, periodically using `/compact` to reduce context usage while moving through files.
• C.Switch to headless mode with `--continue`, passing explicit context summaries between batch calls to maintain continuity.
• D.Define the error-handling pattern in CLAUDE.md, then process files in batches across multiple sessions relying on the shared memory file for consistency.

Show answer & explanations

Correct answer: A

A: An Explore subagent isolates the verbose discovery output in a separate context and returns only a concise summary to the main conversation. This preserves the main context window for the collaborative design and consistent implementation phases where retained context is most valuable.

B: /compact runs after the window is already full of call-site listings, and it drops detail the design phase still needs.

C: Headless --continue with handwritten summaries drops the collaborative design step and depends on those summaries being complete.

D: A later session plus CLAUDE.md does not carry the discovered call sites unless they were written down. That listing is what filled the window.

Related Context Management & Reliability questions

More: Paper 5 · All practice questions