分類用の例
報告する例と無視する例を示します
「分類用の例」はCoddyKit上の無料Claude Architectレッスンです。 これはレッスン2/4です。 下記で完全なレッスンを無料で読むことができます。その後、ブラウザ内の組み込みコードエディタと24時間対応のAIチューターでハンズオン演習できます。 これはClaude Architect学習パスの一部であり、ウェブとCoddyKitアプリ全体で進捗が同期されます。 Claude Architectコースには全4レッスンが含まれています。
このレッスンの一部はまだ翻訳されておらず、英語で表示されています。
Why Categorical Examples Matter
When you give Claude a job that has a fuzzy boundary, vague instructions like "be more precise" rarely work. The model can't read your mind about where the line sits.
The reliable fix is categorical examples: a small set of 2-4 few-shot examples that show concrete cases of what to report and what to ignore. The model generalizes from these examples to new, unseen inputs — it does not merely repeat them.
This lesson shows how to build those examples for a classic architect task: deciding what is worth flagging and what is noise.
Explicit Criteria Beat Vague Adjectives
Before you even reach for examples, state an explicit criterion. Explicit rules consistently beat vague adjectives.
- Vague: "Review the code carefully."
- Explicit: "Flag a comment only when it contradicts the code it describes."
The explicit version draws a sharp line. Categorical examples then make that line unmistakable by pinning it to concrete cases on each side.
system = (
"You review code comments. "
"Flag a comment ONLY when it contradicts the code it describes. "
"Ignore style, tone, and outdated-but-harmless notes."
)The Shape of a Categorical Example Set
A good set has examples on both sides of the boundary, each with a one-line reason. Two REPORT cases and two IGNORE cases is enough for most ambiguities — 2-4 targeted examples is the sweet spot.
Each example carries three parts:
- the input (the thing being judged)
- the verdict (report / ignore)
- a short reason tied to your criterion
The reason is what lets the model generalize correctly instead of pattern-matching on surface features.
Worked Example: Report vs Ignore
Here is a categorical example block for the comment-review task. Notice the symmetry: contradictions are reported; harmless mismatches are ignored.
EXAMPLES = """
<example verdict="REPORT">
code: return price * 1.2
comment: # applies 10% tax
reason: comment says 10% but code applies 20% (contradiction)
</example>
<example verdict="IGNORE">
code: timeout = 30 # seconds
comment: # seconds
reason: accurate; matches the code
</example>
<example verdict="IGNORE">
code: # TODO: refactor later
comment: # TODO: refactor later
reason: stylistic note, not a contradiction
</example>
<example verdict="REPORT">
code: if user.is_admin: deny()
comment: # allow admins
reason: comment says allow but code denies (contradiction)
</example>
"""Generalization, Not Memorization
The power of categorical examples is that the model generalizes. It does not need an example for every possible input.
From the four cases above, Claude learns the rule "flag semantic contradictions, ignore harmless mismatches" and applies it to a brand-new comment it has never seen, such as a docstring that claims a function returns a list when it returns a dict.
This is why few-shot examples are ideal for consistency, edge cases, output format, and reducing hallucination.
Pin the Edges of the Boundary
The most valuable examples sit right at the boundary, where the decision is genuinely hard. A near-miss IGNORE next to a near-hit REPORT teaches far more than two obvious cases.
For a research agent deciding which statistics to surface, you might contrast a stale figure with a current one — and note that dates often resolve apparent contradictions rather than one number simply being wrong.
EXAMPLES = """
<example verdict="REPORT">
fact: "Revenue was $4.1B in FY2024" (source dated 2025-02)
reason: current, sourced, on-topic -> surface it
</example>
<example verdict="IGNORE">
fact: "Revenue was $3.2B" (source dated 2019, no fiscal year)
reason: stale and undated for our scope -> drop, do not treat as a conflict
</example>
"""Examples Drive Structured Output Too
Categorical examples pair naturally with structured output. When the verdict must be machine-readable, force a tool call so the result is valid JSON every time.
Use tool_choice of type "any" to guarantee the model calls some tool (guaranteeing structured output), or force one specific tool by name. A JSON Schema then eliminates syntax errors and enforces required fields.
tools = [{
"name": "record_finding",
"description": "Record a review verdict for one item.",
"input_schema": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"verdict": {"enum": ["report", "ignore"]},
"reason": {"type": "string"}
},
"required": ["verdict", "reason"]
}
}]
resp = client.messages.create(
model="claude-sonnet-4-5",
max_tokens=512,
tools=tools,
tool_choice={"type": "any"},
system=system,
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": EXAMPLES + new_item}],
)Only Require Fields That Always Exist
A subtle trap: in your finding schema, mark a field required only if it is always present. If you require a field that may be absent — say a line_number for findings that aren't line-specific — the model will fabricate a value to satisfy the schema.
For categories that may grow, use an enum plus an "other" value and a free-text detail field. That keeps the output structured while staying extensible.
"category": {"enum": ["contradiction", "security", "other"]},
"category_detail": {"type": "string"} # filled when category == other
# line_number is NOT required: many findings are file-levelWhen Examples Are the Wrong Tool
Categorical examples sharpen a judgment boundary. They do not invent missing information.
If the model returns an empty or wrong result because the needed fact is simply absent from the source, more examples won't help — and neither will retry-with-feedback. Retry fixes format, structural, and arithmetic errors, not absent data.
Distinguish a genuine empty result ("no matches found") from an access failure (the source couldn't be read). Treat them differently in your recovery logic.
Categorical Examples in CLAUDE.md and Reviews
Bake your report/ignore policy where the work happens. For a CI review job, put the examples in project-level CLAUDE.md (shared via VCS) so every run and every teammate inherits the same boundary.
In CI, run the review in an isolated session (less biased than the generation context) with -p for non-interactive output. Explicit criteria plus categorical examples are exactly how you minimize false positives.
## Review policy (categorical)
REPORT: a comment that contradicts the code it describes.
IGNORE: style nits, tone, outdated-but-harmless TODOs.
Example REPORT -> `# 10% tax` over `price * 1.2`
Example IGNORE -> `timeout = 30 # seconds` (accurate)Putting It Together
The full recipe for a clean report/ignore decision:
- Write one explicit criterion for the boundary.
- Add 2-4 categorical examples split across both sides, each with a reason.
- Pin examples at the hard edges, not the obvious cases.
- Force structured output with a tool; require only ever-present fields.
- Remember: examples shape judgment, not missing data.
Do this and Claude generalizes your intent reliably across inputs it has never seen.
Quick Check
A review agent flags too many harmless comments as problems. You want it to report only genuine contradictions. Which change will most reliably tighten the boundary?
Recap
Key takeaways:
- Explicit criteria + categorical examples beat vague adjectives for fuzzy boundaries.
- Use 2-4 examples split across report and ignore, each with a reason; the model generalizes, it doesn't just repeat.
- Pin examples at the hard edges; remember dates often resolve apparent contradictions.
- Pair with structured output (
tool_choice"any" + JSON Schema); require only ever-present fields, use enum+"other" for extensibility. - Examples sharpen judgment, not missing data — absent facts need a different fix, and retry only repairs format/arithmetic errors.
よくある質問
「分類用の例」レッスンは無料ですか？
はい。「分類用の例」の完全なテキストはこのウェブで無料で読めます。インタラクティブに演習し（組み込みコードエディタと24時間対応のAIチューター）、Claude Architectコースの残りをアンロックするには、CoddyKit PROにアップグレードしてください。 Claude Architectコースには全4レッスンが含まれています。
「分類用の例」で何を学びますか？
報告する例と無視する例を示します ブラウザで直接実行するハンズオンコードでClaude Architectを演習し、24時間対応のAIチューターがレッスンを進める中での質問に答えます。
Claude Architectを始めるのに経験は必要ですか？
事前経験は必要ありません。CoddyKitのClaude Architectは初級者から上級者向けに構成されているため、ここから始めるか最初から始めて、自分のペースで進むことができます。 これはレッスン2/4です。
「分類用の例」レッスンにはどのくらい時間がかかりますか？
ほとんどのCoddyKitレッスンは約5～10分かかります。各レッスンはコンパクトでインタラクティブなので、着実に進歩し、ウェブとアプリ全体で正確に前回の場所から再開できます。
このClaude Architectレッスンでコードを書いて実行できますか？
はい。すべてのClaude Architectレッスンに組み込みコードエディタが含まれているため、ブラウザでリアルコードを書いて実行し、即座のAIフィードバックを取得できます。ローカル設定は不要です。