Option B expresses both independent delegations in the same orchestration turn, allowing the runtime to execute them concurrently and return their results together. The current Claude Agent SDK calls the subagent- spawning capability the Agent tool; Task is its former name. Anthropic's SDK subagent documentation explicitly identifies parallel analysis as a primary subagent use case. Claude tool responses can also contain multiple tool_use blocks , enabling independent calls to be handled as one parallel group rather than as serial model turns. Option A shortens each execution but does not remove the unnecessary wait between them and may reduce analysis quality. Option C provides useful behavioral guidance, but instructions alone do not establish the required response structure; the coordinator must actually emit both calls together. Option D duplicates coordinator execution, complicates state management, and creates unnecessary aggregation work.
The correct flow is parallel fan-out from one coordinator, followed by a synchronization point that validates both results before synthesis begins. Failures should be tracked independently so that only the unsuccessful branch requires retrying.

The investigation contains several bounded research questions that can be delegated independently: locating the complete test suite, tracing payment and refund flows, identifying conditional branches, and mapping external dependencies. Each subagent can read the relevant files in its own context and return a focused summary to the coordinating agent.
Anthropic recommends subagents for codebase exploration because extensive file reading rapidly consumes the main context window. Subagents isolate that volume and return only their conclusions, preserving the main conversation for synthesis and implementation. ( https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code
/common-workflows ) Anthropic also describes parallel research as appropriate when separate investigation paths can proceed independently and the main agent can synthesize the results afterward. ( https://docs.
anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/sub-agents )
Option B sacrifices the current conversational state and requires reconstruction after /clear . Option C may reduce token usage, but isolated text matches cannot reliably reveal full execution paths, indirect calls, or test coverage relationships. Option D converts the current analysis into a single lossy summary and risks omitting details needed later.
Option A directly addresses the demonstrated context degradation while retaining a high-level coordinating thread. The subagent prompts should be narrowly scoped and require concrete outputs such as file paths, uncovered branches, call-chain evidence, and existing tests associated with each flow.
Official references/topics: Subagent Context Isolation; Parallel Research; Context Preservation; Coordinated Codebase Analysis.

Formatting is deterministic and should be enforced by deterministic tooling rather than stronger natural- language instructions. A PostToolUse hook executes after a successful tool operation. Matching Edit|Write restricts the hook to file modifications, allowing the edited file path to be passed directly to Prettier.
Anthropic provides this exact pattern in its official hooks guidance: configure a PostToolUse event with an Edit|Write matcher and run Prettier against the modified file. This ensures formatting occurs automatically after every relevant edit instead of depending on Claude remembering to execute a formatter. ( https://code.
claude.com/docs/en/hooks-guide )
Option A still relies on instruction-following and unnecessarily loads procedural material. Option B asks another probabilistic model evaluation to determine whether formatting is correct, even though Prettier can enforce the result directly. A Stop hook also runs later than necessary. Option C improves contextual relevance but does not guarantee compliance; path-scoped rules remain instructions rather than enforcement controls.
The hook should be stored in project settings so the workflow is shared by the team. The formatter's exit status should also be monitored so configuration or syntax failures are visible instead of silently ignored.
Official references/topics: Claude Code Hooks; PostToolUse; Edit|Write Matchers; Deterministic Formatting Enforcement.

Option C defines the reviewer's actual objective instead of relying on an undefined notion of confidence. The prompt should identify reportable categories such as correctness defects, security vulnerabilities, data-loss risks, broken requirements, and meaningful performance regressions. It should also specify that cosmetic preferences, lint-enforced formatting, speculative refactoring, and intentional repository conventions must not be reported unless they cause concrete incorrect behavior.
Anthropic's Claude Code best-practices guidance recommends telling a reviewer to report gaps affecting correctness or stated requirements and to treat other observations as optional. Without such criteria, a reviewer asked to "find issues" will predictably return technically defensible but operationally low-value observations. Option A adds cost and another probabilistic decision layer before correcting the primary prompt. Option B relies on self-reported confidence, which does not necessarily align with developer value or severity. Option D can suppress genuine defects that require inference or cross-file verification because
"highly confident" is undefined. Explicit scope, evidence requirements, and examples of both reportable and excluded findings directly calibrate the review toward what developers will act upon. Claude Code best practices

Option A is the most sustainable open-world design. The property-type domain is demonstrably not closed:
uncommon values already occur, and new labels continue to appear. An enum is appropriate only when the valid vocabulary is stable and exhaustive. If the source contains a legitimate value outside that vocabulary, the schema either rejects it or pressures the model to map it inaccurately. A free-form string preserves the source meaning, while deterministic post-processing can normalize "studio," "loft," "duplex," and future terms into an evolving canonical taxonomy. Anthropic's Structured Outputs documentation distinguishes structural schema conformance from the semantic decisions made within that schema; it also documents that JSON Schema constraints such as enums govern allowable output shapes and values. Few-shot mapping to the nearest existing enum, option B, discards real distinctions. Continually expanding the enum, option C, creates recurring schema changes and still lags newly observed values. An "other" bucket with detail, option D, is workable but collapses all emerging categories at the primary field and complicates analytics until downstream interpretation occurs. Capturing the raw type first and normalizing it in code provides lossless extraction, testable mappings, and forward compatibility.