Free CCDV-F Questions for Anthropic Claude Certified Developer-Foundations CCDV-F Exam as PDF & Practice Test Engine

The Anthropic API deprecated a request parameter that your Claude application uses in approximately 40 places across the codebase. The deprecation notice gives a six-month window before the parameter is removed and recommends a replacement parameter with slightly different semantics.
You would respond to the deprecation by...

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?

You are setting up Claude Code for a new project repository. Your team has shared coding standards, preferred libraries, and project-specific context that every developer working on the repository should have available when they use Claude Code.
How would you set this up?

You are reviewing an architectural diagram for a Claude-powered travel-booking system. The diagram shows a top-level component that interprets user requests and three subordinate components that handle flights, hotels, and ground transportation. The top-level component is responsible for routing each request, sequencing the subordinate components, and reconciling their outputs into a final itinerary. The diagram also shows that each subordinate component has its own tool list and own short conversation history that is not shared with the others.
Which architectural pattern does this diagram most closely describe?

You are starting a new Claude application and have a small set of well-labeled examples that demonstrate the desired output format. You want to use these examples to guide Claude's behavior.
How would you guide the application's behavior?

You are setting up the configuration management approach for a new Claude Code project. Your team will use CLAUDE.md files and settings.json files to control behavior, and you want to make sure changes are tracked and reviewable.
The configuration management approach would...

A team has deployed a multi-agent system in which a primary agent decomposes user requests and delegates subtasks to three specialized subagents: one for data retrieval, one for analysis, and one for report generation.
In production, the team observes that subagents are making redundant tool calls, occasionally exceeding token budgets, and sometimes producing outputs that contradict each other - all of which the primary agent passes along without catching.
What is the most appropriate way to address these failures?

Your agent is processing tasks that take 30 to 60 minutes to complete. Each task has well-defined intermediate checkpoints, and the team wants the agent to be able to resume from the most recent checkpoint if a process is interrupted.
How would you implement this resumability?

Your Claude application uses tool calling to fetch patient data and generate summary reports. The flow occasionally fails because the model returns a tool_use block that references arguments not present in the schema, and your application code does not handle this case gracefully.
How would you address this?

Your agent makes 10 to 15 tool calls per task, and you have noticed it sometimes loses track of earlier results by the time it reaches later steps. The agent's context window is large enough to hold all the messages, but the relevant information appears to get buried as the conversation grows.
How would you address this?