About the Exam

Anthropic's foundational certification for technical practitioners who design and deliver solutions built on Claude. It covers the Claude API, the Claude Agent SDK, Claude Code, and the Model Context Protocol, along with prompt and context design, tool definition, structured output and validation, and the patterns used to run agentic systems in production. Passing demonstrates that a candidate can architect production-grade Claude applications rather than only use the product.

Exam Topics

  • Agentic Architecture & Orchestration27%
  • Tool Design & MCP Integration18%
  • Claude Code Configuration & Workflows20%
  • Prompt Engineering & Structured Output20%
  • Context Management & Reliability15%

How to Use This Practice Exam

  1. Browse — Read each question, select your answer, and reveal the explanation.
  2. Exam Mode — Simulate real exam conditions with a timed session and score report.
  3. Learn Mode — Spaced repetition schedules questions you struggle with for long-term retention.

Download the Full Exam PDF

Get every question and answer in a clean, printable PDF built for offline study. Purchase once, keep permanent access, and re-download the latest version anytime.

Last updated August 24, 2026 at 9:00 AM

Topic filter
Retired questions
Question sort
Questions per page

QuestionQ1

Tool Design & MCP Integration

Your send_notification tool invokes third-party messaging APIs. If these services time out during delivery, you cannot tell whether the message was actually sent. At present, the tool returns is_error: true with a generic “Notification failed” message for every timeout. Production monitoring shows that agents automatically retry these failures, often causing users to receive duplicate notifications. How should you change the error response?

Explanation

A timeout after a delivery request creates an unknown-result condition rather than a confirmed delivery failure. Because the notification may already have been sent, an automatic retry can produce a duplicate; the error should clearly state that status is unknown and advise against retrying.

Community Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

QuestionQ2

Agentic Architecture & Orchestration

You configured the system so that all four subagents can access the full set of 18 tools. During testing, agents often invoke tools outside their specialization—the synthesis agent performs web searches, and the report generator attempts document analysis. What is the main cause of this poor tool-selection behavior?

Explanation

Giving every specialized agent access to all 18 tools expands the decision space with many irrelevant choices. This increased selection complexity makes reliable tool selection harder and leads agents to invoke capabilities outside their intended specialization.

Community Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

QuestionQ3

Agentic Architecture & Orchestration

You’re implementing escalation logic for when the agent should invoke escalate_to_human. Your team has proposed four different ways to trigger escalation. Which approach will most reliably identify cases that truly need human intervention?

Explanation

Human escalation is most reliable when it is triggered by clear, task-relevant conditions: the customer explicitly asks for a human, the required resolution involves a policy exception, or the agent cannot make meaningful progress. These conditions directly reflect a need for human judgment or assistance, unlike sentiment thresholds, fixed retry counts, or rigid category mappings.

Community Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

QuestionQ4

Agentic Architecture & Orchestration

Production reviews show that uncertainty is handled inconsistently in final reports. At times, conflicting subagent findings are combined into one confident statement, losing nuance; at other times, reports use so many qualifications that they become unhelpful. When the web-search agent reports “industry analysts estimate $50B market size (methodology varies)” and the document-analysis agent reports “peer-reviewed study estimates $35B (±$7B, 95% CI),” the coordinator either arbitrarily selects one or produces vague wording such as “the market may be $35B-$50B depending on factors.” What systematic approach best resolves this?

Explanation

Reports should distinguish conclusions that are well established from those that remain contested, while preserving each source’s stated uncertainty, methodology, and evidentiary character. This communicates genuine disagreement without arbitrarily selecting a result, flattening uncertainty into a single number, or obscuring useful context with generic hedging.

Community Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

QuestionQ5

Context Management & Reliability

Your multi-agent research pipeline crashed after processing 12 of 28 documents. The web-search agent had identified relevant sources, the document analyzer had partly completed extraction, and the synthesizer had started identifying patterns.

You need to resume processing without duplicating work or losing fidelity from earlier findings. Which state-management approach best balances information fidelity and context efficiency when restoring agent state?

Explanation

Structured, durable agent exports retain precise intermediate results, while a coordinator manifest records what was completed and which artifacts belong to each task. On recovery, the coordinator can restore only the relevant state into each agent’s working context, avoiding duplicated processing and the prompt bloat and ambiguity of replaying a complete conversation log.

Community Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Know a question that should be here? Contribute to this exam
Back home