分类示例
展示哪些内容应报告，哪些内容应忽略。
分类示例 是 CoddyKit 上的免费 Claude Architect 课时。 这是第 2 节课，共 4 节。 你可以在下方免费阅读本课时的完整内容 — 然后在浏览器中使用内置代码编辑器和全天候 AI 导师进行实践。 这是 Claude Architect 学习路径的一部分，你的进度在网页和 CoddyKit 应用中同步。 Claude Architect 课程共包含 4 节课。
本课时的部分内容尚未翻译，以英文显示。
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"Ignore style, tone, and outdated-but-harmless notes."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.
常见问题解答
「分类示例」课时是免费的吗？
是的 — 「分类示例」的完整文本可在网页上免费阅读。要进行交互式练习（内置代码编辑器和全天候 AI 导师）并解锁 Claude Architect 课程的其余内容，请升级到 CoddyKit PRO。 Claude Architect 课程共包含 4 节课。
「分类示例」这节课中我会学到什么？
展示哪些内容应报告，哪些内容应忽略。 你通过在浏览器中直接运行的动手代码来练习 Claude Architect，全天候 AI 导师会在你学习这节课的过程中回答你的问题。
学习 Claude Architect 需要有经验吗？
无需任何先前经验。CoddyKit 上的 Claude Architect 课程适合初学者到高级学习者，你可以从这里开始或从头开始，按照自己的节奏学习。 这是第 2 节课，共 4 节。
「分类示例」课时需要多长时间？
大多数 CoddyKit 课程大约需要 5–10 分钟。每节课都很精短且互动，所以你能稳步进步，并在网页和应用中从离开的地方继续。
我能在这节 Claude Architect 课中编写并运行代码吗？
能。每节 Claude Architect 课都包含内置代码编辑器，你可以在浏览器中直接编写并运行真实代码，并获得即时 AI 反馈 — 无需本地设置。