Claude Certified Architect · CCAR-F
Test your free CCAR-F learning scope
Sign in to practice every question included in the free learning topics, review explanations, and save your results.
How free practice works
Build confidence before your next step
Your account keeps attempts, review data, and the free study tools connected.
- 1
Sign in or register
Create a free account before starting a test.
- 2
Answer included questions
Practice questions from the included free learning topics.
- 3
Review your results
See explanations and knowledge-domain feedback immediately.
Your free test
Practice the included free learning topics
Each attempt selects from the questions inside the administrator-selected free learning topics.
Public question sample
Preview the question format
See the answer and explanation before starting your own practice test. This sample remains the same while it is available.
A review policy says to flag a comment only when its behavior claim contradicts reachable code. In round two, reviewer R reports: (1) '# makes three attempts' above a loop with range(3); its only assertion is that a timeout test is absent; (2) '# rejects non-admins' above an endpoint whose viewer-role integration test returns 200 and changes data; (3) an unmodified local naming convention. The team also wants review convergence without losing newly introduced defects. Its later-round policy skips unchanged local-style preferences but keeps newly evidenced behavior defects eligible. Which two policy decisions follow from this evidence? (Choose 2.)
- A.Withhold finding 1 unless source or execution evidence contradicts the three-attempt claim; a missing test alone is insufficient.Correct answer
- B.Report finding 2 with the reachable endpoint and viewer test evidence; skip finding 3 under a later-round style rule.Correct answer
- C.Withhold finding 1 pending a contradiction and report finding 2 from its viewer trace, but keep finding 3 as a blocking issue because any local naming preference should survive a later-round exclusion.
- D.Withhold finding 1 and skip finding 3, but withhold finding 2 in round two because the first review did not report it, even though the new viewer execution contradicts the access claim.
Why this is correct
The decisions require separating missing verification from an actual contradiction, then applying a convergence rule without suppressing a demonstrated defect.
Subject coverage
Knowledge domains covered in this subject
These weights describe the full subject blueprint. Free-test questions are selected randomly from the available question pool.
Agentic Architecture & Orchestration27%
Tool Design & MCP Integration18%
Claude Code Configuration & Workflows20%
Prompt Engineering & Structured Output20%
Context Management & Reliability15%