CCAR-F practice › Agentic Architecture & Orchestration · Question 19 of 105
Agentic Architecture & Orchestration
Policy requires human approval for refunds over $500. A team adds a hook that rejects process_refund calls above $500 with a generic "not permitted" error. Afterwards, customers with large refunds report the agent apologizing and ending the conversation with no next step. What is the best improvement?
Show answer and explanation
Answer: C — Keep the block, but have the hook explain the limit and redirect the agent to escalate_to_human
Tool call interception hooks should block the policy-violating action and redirect to an alternative workflow, here human escalation. Removing the hook (a) trades a guarantee for probabilistic compliance, raising the threshold (b) changes the policy rather than the design, and an alert after allowing the refund (d) reports the violation instead of preventing it.
Keep going
More Agentic Architecture & Orchestration questions
- An agent team is deciding where to use Agent SDK hooks instead of prompt instructions…
- A CI step reviews pull requests by sending all changed files to Claude in one prompt. On…
- An engineer asks an agent to "add comprehensive tests to this legacy codebase," which…
- Which two tasks are better suited to dynamic adaptive decomposition than to a fixed…
- A developer spends a day investigating a memory leak with Claude Code and wants to…