PrepGenAICerts

Eval, Testing, and Debugging

2.6% of exam

Identify the type of a Claude application failure, isolate whether it originates in the integration layer or the model output, use trace analysis to find the earliest faulty step in a multi-step workflow, and select and verify the right recovery strategy.

4

task statements

9

concepts

6

practice questions

Domain Mastery

0%
ts-ccdvf-4.1

Identify the type of a Claude application error

Recognizing the recognizable buckets a failure falls into -- transport, request, parsing/validation, model-output, and tool-loop -- because the bucket dictates the fix.

Knowledge of

  • The five recognizable failure buckets: transport/HTTP, request error, parsing/validation, model-output error, and tool-loop error
  • Which layer each failure bucket lives in -- the integration layer (code, request, parsing) versus the model output
  • The signals that identify each bucket: status codes (429, 400, 401, 5xx), a code-level parsing exception, or well-formed-but-wrong content
  • The core discipline of not fixing the prompt when the bug is in code, and not patching code when the model output is the actual problem

Skills in

  • Reading a failure's signal (status code, exception type, or content quality) to classify it into the correct bucket
  • Recognizing that a crash while reading Claude's response is a parsing bug in the consumer, not evidence the model is wrong
  • Avoiding the reflex of tuning the prompt for a bug that is actually in the integration code, or vice versa

Concepts

ts-ccdvf-4.2

Isolate integration-layer failures from model-output failures

Applying a reliable reproduce-inspect-localize procedure, including reading stop_reason to catch truncation, to determine which layer actually owns a given failure.

Knowledge of

  • The reproduce-inspect-localize procedure: reproduce with the exact failing request, inspect the raw response before post-processing, then localize by status code and content quality
  • The mapping from observation to layer: non-2xx status means integration/transport; 2xx but code throws means parsing/validation; 2xx and parses fine but content is wrong means model-output
  • stop_reason as a diagnostic field, and specifically that stop_reason: max_tokens means the output was truncated
  • That truncation is a common, easily misdiagnosed cause of 'invalid JSON' errors

Skills in

  • Reproducing a failure with the exact same messages, params, tools, and model before attempting any fix
  • Inspecting the raw response -- status code, stop_reason, usage, and full content blocks -- before any post-processing runs
  • Localizing a failure to the correct layer using status code and content-quality observations
  • Recognizing stop_reason: max_tokens as truncation and fixing it by raising max_tokens rather than blaming the schema

Concepts

ts-ccdvf-4.3

Use trace analysis to find failure modes in multi-step workflows

Logging and walking the full sequence of model calls, tool calls, and intermediate messages in an agent or workflow to localize the earliest step that deviated.

Knowledge of

  • That a bad final answer in an agent or multi-step workflow is usually the end of a chain of steps, not an isolated event
  • Trace analysis: logging every model call, tool call, arguments, tool result, and intermediate message to walk the sequence
  • The principle of looking for the earliest deviation rather than debugging only the final output
  • That traces can also expose context problems -- quality degrading late in a long session points to context bloat/drift, not a model defect

Skills in

  • Logging request/response pairs, tool invocations, and token usage at each hop of a multi-step workflow
  • Walking a trace to find the earliest step that deviated rather than fixating on the final failing output
  • Distinguishing a genuine model or tool-choice error from a late-session quality drop caused by context bloat

Concepts

ts-ccdvf-4.4

Select recovery strategies and verify fixes with evals

Matching a recovery strategy to the failure type, and closing the loop with evaluations that turn 'seems better' into a measurable, repeatable check.

Knowledge of

  • Recovery strategies mapped to failure types: retry with backoff, fix-and-resend, defensive parsing/repair, raising max_tokens, grounding/constraining, and graceful degradation/human-in-the-loop
  • That retrying an unchanged request is pointless for 400/401 errors, which need a fix, not a retry
  • Evaluations as the mechanism that verifies a fix actually worked and catches regressions on the next model version
  • The components of an eval: a representative test set, a scoring method (exact match, graded rubric, or LLM-as-judge), and a target metric
  • That non-deterministic model output requires an eval set and metric, not a single manual spot-check, to confirm a fix

Skills in

  • Matching retry-with-backoff to transient transport errors (429/529/5xx) rather than to errors that need a code or payload fix
  • Applying defensive parsing and reprompt/repair strategies to malformed structured output
  • Grounding and constraining prompts to address hallucinated content instead of merely retrying
  • Choosing graceful degradation or human-in-the-loop escalation when automated recovery can't guarantee correctness
  • Building an eval set with a scoring method and target metric to verify a fix and guard against regressions

Concepts

PrepGenAICerts is an independent exam-prep site. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Anthropic, PBC. Claude and Anthropic are trademarks of Anthropic, PBC. Exam details are taken from publicly available Anthropic and Pearson documentation. About PrepGenAICerts.