Anthropic Claude Certified Developer-Foundations : CCDV-F exam dump

A teammate has submitted a pull request that adds a Claude-powered feature to your service. The code works, but the prompt and model selection are hard-coded inline, error handling is missing, and there are no tests for the integration.
What would you request during code review?

• A. Approve the pull request as-is, on the grounds that the feature works in the happy path and the missing pieces can be added in follow-up commits.
• B. Request changes that move prompt and model configuration to a configurable location, add error handling for Claude API failures, and add tests for the integration.
• C. Approve the pull request and add the missing pieces yourself in a follow-up commit so the teammate can move on to other work immediately.
• D. Request changes that move prompt and model configuration to a configurable location and add tests, treating the missing error handling as a follow-up release item.

Your Claude application receives untrusted input from external sources. The team is establishing how the application should treat this untrusted input.
Untrusted input would be...

• A. Routed through a separate Claude application with more lax security controls so the original application does not handle the untrusted input directly.
• B. Treated identically to trusted input from internal sources, on the grounds that all input the application receives can be handled the same way.
• C. Blocked entirely so the application accepts only trusted input, with no path for legitimate external input the application might process.
• D. Validated and sanitized before being incorporated into prompts, and treated as data the model should not interpret as instructions.

Your team is choosing how to add a capability to a Claude application. You want to apply the appropriate option, whether built-in tool, custom tool, Skill, or MCP server, based on the use case.
You would choose the option that...

• A. Matches the use case's scope, reuse needs, and integration context.
• B. Is the easiest to build given the team's current development tools and workflows.
• C. Is the most familiar to the team based on prior experience with similar capabilities.
• D. Is the newest available option among built-in tools, custom tools, Skills, and MCP servers.

Your Claude application's error handling currently logs every API error with the same severity level. The team wants to differentiate between errors that should page an on-call engineer and errors that should be logged for later review. How would you structure the error handling?

• A. Disable logging for any error that does not page, treating non-paging errors as not worth recording for later review either.
• B. Log every error with the same severity, on the grounds that differentiating severity adds complexity that does not pay off in most application setups over time.
• C. Page on every error, on the grounds that paging guarantees that no error is missed by the team during normal operation across the application's lifecycle.
• D. Categorize errors by severity based on impact and recoverability, then route each category to the appropriate channel for paging or logging.

You are designing a Claude application that will require structured JSON output for downstream processing.
The output schema is well-defined, and downstream systems will reject malformed JSON.

• A. Define a clear schema and structure the prompt to request output in that schema, with downstream systems handling any validation needed.
• B. Define a clear schema, structure the prompt to request output in that schema, and validate Claude's output against the schema before passing it downstream.
• C. Avoid structured output and use free-form text everywhere instead, on the grounds that free-form text is more flexible and handles edge cases better than structured schemas.
• D. Structure the prompt to request output in a schema that is described in plain English, with downstream systems parsing whatever shape Claude produces.