Pass Anthropic CCA-F Exam in First Attempt Easily

New nested test directories remain uncovered. This alternative suggests “Use a test rule matching only the original service's immediate test folder”, whereas the supported approach is “Use a recursive glob for test paths in a shared rule definition”. Recursive matching covers newly created matching directories. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

“Apply the testing convention to every production file irrespective of path” is the wrong action for this case. A test-specific rule should not pollute application changes. The supported choice is “Use a recursive glob for test paths in a shared rule definition”. Recursive matching covers newly created matching directories. Test both matching and nonmatching file paths, including sibling directories, to detect accidental gaps or overbroad instruction inheritance.

Recursive scope scales better and avoids drift. The proposal “Duplicate the complete instructions in each new test directory” conflicts with the required decision. “Use a recursive glob for test paths in a shared rule definition” addresses the actual condition. Recursive matching covers newly created matching directories. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

“Put SQL review requirements in a generic rule for every file” is the wrong action for this case. Non-SQL changes would receive irrelevant guidance. The supported choice is “Use path-scoped configuration matching migration SQL files”. Path conditions load specialized guidance only for relevant edits. Test both matching and nonmatching file paths, including sibling directories, to detect accidental gaps or overbroad instruction inheritance.

A deterministic path matcher is more reliable. The proposal “Apply the rule only after an agent guesses that a file contains migration…” conflicts with the required decision. “Use path-scoped configuration matching migration SQL files” addresses the actual condition. Path conditions load specialized guidance only for relevant edits. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

Future editing sessions would not consistently load it. This alternative suggests “Place the SQL policy in a one-off chat note instead of versioned rules”, whereas the supported approach is “Use path-scoped configuration matching migration SQL files”. Path conditions load specialized guidance only for relevant edits. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

API changes would continually carry irrelevant context. The proposal “Keep frontend CSS instructions in the universal root rules” conflicts with the required decision. “Move frontend rules to path-scoped modules matching frontend files” addresses the actual condition. Selective loading conserves context and reduces contradictory guidance. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

The team still needs scoped frontend guidance. This alternative suggests “Delete all frontend standards to shorten the root file”, whereas the supported approach is “Move frontend rules to path-scoped modules matching frontend files”. Selective loading conserves context and reduces contradictory guidance. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

“Move frontend instructions to a database-only rule module” is the wrong action for this case. The target frontend files would not be covered. The supported choice is “Move frontend rules to path-scoped modules matching frontend files”. Selective loading conserves context and reduces contradictory guidance. Test both matching and nonmatching file paths, including sibling directories, to detect accidental gaps or overbroad instruction inheritance.

Duplicates can drift as the team updates one. This alternative suggests “Copy the same security policy into two separate package instruction trees”, whereas the supported approach is “Use one shared .claude/rules entry with both target glob patterns”. One rule definition can cover multiple dispersed scopes. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

“Expand one package-local rule without adding sibling paths” is the wrong action for this case. The second package remains unmatched. The supported choice is “Use one shared .claude/rules entry with both target glob patterns”. One rule definition can cover multiple dispersed scopes. Test both matching and nonmatching file paths, including sibling directories, to detect accidental gaps or overbroad instruction inheritance.

It risks contaminating unrelated code. The proposal “Use a project-wide match for every file type and directory” conflicts with the required decision. “Use one shared .claude/rules entry with both target glob patterns” addresses the actual condition. One rule definition can cover multiple dispersed scopes. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

A path matcher can omit deeper levels. This alternative suggests “Assume a single-level glob matches every nested directory”, whereas the supported approach is “Correct its path-matching expression to include nested directories where intended”. The matcher determines whether conditional rules activate. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

“Remove the rule entirely when it misses one subdirectory” is the wrong action for this case. The intended policy should remain enforceable. The supported choice is “Correct its path-matching expression to include nested directories where intended”. The matcher determines whether conditional rules activate. Test both matching and nonmatching file paths, including sibling directories, to detect accidental gaps or overbroad instruction inheritance.

An overbroad fix may apply to unrelated files. The proposal “Add a broad global wildcard without checking the expected match set” conflicts with the required decision. “Correct its path-matching expression to include nested directories where intended” addresses the actual condition. The matcher determines whether conditional rules activate. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

“Run Helm template checks on every YAML configuration file” is the wrong action for this case. Ordinary YAML outside charts may have different requirements. The supported choice is “Use path patterns for the chart templates rather than all YAML files”. Narrow matching avoids applying Helm-specific expectations to unrelated YAML. Test both matching and nonmatching file paths, including sibling directories, to detect accidental gaps or overbroad instruction inheritance.

Team rules need a reproducible project scope. The proposal “Store Helm rules only in one developer's shell history” conflicts with the required decision. “Use path patterns for the chart templates rather than all YAML files” addresses the actual condition. Narrow matching avoids applying Helm-specific expectations to unrelated YAML. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

Chart template paths can be recursive. This alternative suggests “Match only top-level YAML files and miss nested chart templates”, whereas the supported approach is “Use path patterns for the chart templates rather than all YAML files”. Narrow matching avoids applying Helm-specific expectations to unrelated YAML. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

A fixture exception need not permit arbitrary changes. The proposal “Remove the no-write rule for the whole repository” conflicts with the required decision. “Define a narrowly scoped fixture exception with appropriate permitted tools” addresses the actual condition. Conditional rules can express project-specific distinctions without weakening the global default everywhere. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

The workflow must support the stated legitimate exception. This alternative suggests “Keep absolute no-write enforcement even for approved generated fixtures”, whereas the supported approach is “Define a narrowly scoped fixture exception with appropriate permitted tools”. Conditional rules can express project-specific distinctions without weakening the global default everywhere. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

“Let every agent decide privately whether its write is a fixture” is the wrong action for this case. A narrowly scoped policy should define allowed paths/tools. The supported choice is “Define a narrowly scoped fixture exception with appropriate permitted tools”. Conditional rules can express project-specific distinctions without weakening the global default everywhere. Test both matching and nonmatching file paths, including sibling directories, to detect accidental gaps or overbroad instruction inheritance.

Repeated copies increase drift across services. This alternative suggests “Copy the lockfile policy into every service's CLAUDE.md”, whereas the supported approach is “Use a shared lockfile path glob in project rule frontmatter”. File-type scoping handles scattered resources consistently. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

“Match only the repository-root lockfile” is the wrong action for this case. Other service lockfiles would be omitted. The supported choice is “Use a shared lockfile path glob in project rule frontmatter”. File-type scoping handles scattered resources consistently. Test both matching and nonmatching file paths, including sibling directories, to detect accidental gaps or overbroad instruction inheritance.

Dependency rules should activate only for lockfiles. The proposal “Use an instruction scope that applies to every file regardless of type” conflicts with the required decision. “Use a shared lockfile path glob in project rule frontmatter” addresses the actual condition. File-type scoping handles scattered resources consistently. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

Its path matcher is likely overbroad. This alternative suggests “Treat the naming rule as globally applicable because it appeared during a Markdown…”, whereas the supported approach is “Check the rule's paths matcher and narrow it to the intended source files”. Overbroad activation usually follows incorrect file-pattern scope. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

“Delete the shared naming convention without inspecting its matcher” is the wrong action for this case. The rule may still be valid for source files. The supported choice is “Check the rule's paths matcher and narrow it to the intended source files”. Overbroad activation usually follows incorrect file-pattern scope. Test both matching and nonmatching file paths, including sibling directories, to detect accidental gaps or overbroad instruction inheritance.

Scope should be corrected at the matching layer. The proposal “Add more prose exceptions while leaving the paths unchanged” conflicts with the required decision. “Check the rule's paths matcher and narrow it to the intended source files” addresses the actual condition. Overbroad activation usually follows incorrect file-pattern scope. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

“Apply generated-file edit restrictions to all handwritten Go code” is the wrong action for this case. Handwritten sources require a different editing policy. The supported choice is “Create separate path-scoped rules for generated and source directories”. Distinct scopes make the allowed transformations unambiguous. Test both matching and nonmatching file paths, including sibling directories, to detect accidental gaps or overbroad instruction inheritance.

Generated artifacts should follow their regeneration workflow. The proposal “Make generated files writable without warning in the name of consistency” conflicts with the required decision. “Create separate path-scoped rules for generated and source directories” addresses the actual condition. Distinct scopes make the allowed transformations unambiguous. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

The two file classes have different lifecycles. This alternative suggests “Use one global rule with no generated-path distinctions”, whereas the supported approach is “Create separate path-scoped rules for generated and source directories”. Distinct scopes make the allowed transformations unambiguous. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

Unrelated files would inherit the policy. The proposal “Let a package-local rule match every sibling package through a broad wildcard” conflicts with the required decision. “Replace broad matching with explicit target directory patterns” addresses the actual condition. Conditional rule boundaries should follow actual ownership of files. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

The intended package still needs the constraint. This alternative suggests “Delete the rule and rely on reviewers to remember its purpose”, whereas the supported approach is “Replace broad matching with explicit target directory patterns”. Conditional rule boundaries should follow actual ownership of files. Path-conditional rules only work as intended when their glob patterns and repository locations select the correct files, not merely when their text sounds appropriate.

“Move the rule into user-level settings to make it “safer”” is the wrong action for this case. User scope does not reliably target just the package. The supported choice is “Replace broad matching with explicit target directory patterns”. Conditional rule boundaries should follow actual ownership of files. Test both matching and nonmatching file paths, including sibling directories, to detect accidental gaps or overbroad instruction inheritance.