CCDV-F Claude Code Practice Question
A developer is using Claude Code to refactor a function across multiple files. After a few edits, Claude Code proposes a change that would alter the behavior of a critical utility function used elsewhere. The developer wants to ensure the change is safe before applying it. What is the most appropriate action?
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap here is thinking that running tests after accepting a risky change is sufficient, when the real risk is that tests may not cover all usages of a critical function.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Reject the change and ask Claude Code to propose an alternative that preserves the existing behavior.
Rejecting the proposed change and asking for an alternative that preserves existing behavior is the safest approach when a critical utility function is involved. It keeps the developer in control and avoids unintended side effects. Other options either apply the risky change, discard too much work, or bypass the review process entirely.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Use the `/undo` command to revert all previous edits and start the refactor from scratch.
Why it's wrong here
Using `/undo` to revert all edits is overly drastic and discards valid work already done. The issue is only with the latest proposed change, not the entire refactor. Reverting everything would waste time and lose progress. The developer should address the specific problematic change rather than rolling back the whole session.
- ✗
Accept the change and run the full test suite afterward to catch any regressions.
Why it's wrong here
Accepting the change first and testing later is risky because the utility function may be used in ways not covered by the test suite. If tests are incomplete, the regression could reach production. The developer should review the proposed change in context before applying it, especially when it affects a critical shared function.
- ✓
Reject the change and ask Claude Code to propose an alternative that preserves the existing behavior.
Why this is correct
Rejecting the change and requesting an alternative that maintains the original behavior ensures that the critical utility function remains stable. This approach leverages Claude Code's ability to iterate on suggestions while keeping the developer in control. It is the safest way to avoid unintended side effects in other parts of the codebase that depend on that function.
- ✗
Manually edit the utility function to match the proposed change and then continue.
Why it's wrong here
Manually applying the change without understanding its impact on other callers is just as risky as accepting it. The developer should first assess whether the behavior change is acceptable. If not, they should request an alternative. Manual editing does not provide any additional safety and may introduce inconsistencies with Claude Code's understanding of the code.
About these practice questions
One of 257 original CCDV-F practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official Anthropic exam blueprint
This CCDV-F practice question is part of Courseiva's free Anthropic certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CCDV-F exam.