Question 8: CCAR-P: Claude Certified Architect - Professional
An engineering organization is adopting Claude Code across 200 developers. A team lead has proposed that AI-generated pull requests bypass the standard code review process for changes under 50 lines, on the grounds that small changes are low-risk and review capacity is constrained. Which two Diligence-competency objec…
Nội dung câu hỏi
An engineering organization is adopting Claude Code across 200 developers. A team lead has proposed that AI-generated pull requests bypass the standard code review process for changes under 50 lines, on the grounds that small changes are low-risk and review capacity is constrained. Which two Diligence-competency objections should you raise? (Choose two.) Each correct answer presents part of the solution.
Các lựa chọn
Đáp án được giữ gọn theo nhãn A, B, C, D trong phần bình chọn tương tác.
- A. Code review capacity should be expanded to handle every code change submitted across the team.
- B. The 50-line threshold should be raised to 200 lines instead to capture more changes overall.
- C. Line count is a poor proxy for the actual risk a code change introduces into the system. — đáp án hiện tại
- D. Removing review removes the verification mechanism that AI-generated output requires across the workflow. — đáp án hiện tại
- E. AI-generated pull requests should be rejected as a default policy across the engineering organization.
Answer researched independently against supporting documentation; not a published source answer key. Independent reasoning (not a published answer key): A short change can carry substantial risk; removing review removes independent verification of generated code. References: https://www.anthropic.com/ai-fluency/due-dilligence https://code.claude.com/docs/en/security
Cộng đồng
0 bình luận công khai. Tên thành viên được ẩn một phần.