Interview guides · Agiliad Technologies

Agiliad Technologies Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Testing practice for Agiliad Technologies software engineer candidates: the boundaries worth covering, and why flakiness is a real defect.

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at Agiliad Technologies, you are at the core of the company’s mission to deliver high-quality, complex engineering solutions. Agiliad Technologies operates in diverse domains, including embedded systems, cloud automation, and full-stack development, making this role essential to the success of their client-facing products. You will not just be writing code; you will be contributing to the architecture, validation, and maintenance of critical software that powers real-world industrial and enterprise applications.

Find out what you will be typing into. A shared plain-text editor with no autocomplete, compiler or test runner changes what you have to hold in your head, and practising inside your own configured environment hides exactly that gap.

Focus areas

Make every write idempotent under client retries
Evolve APIs without breaking pinned SDK clients
Keep money in integer minor units

Overview

The environment at Agiliad Technologies is fast-paced and project-driven. You will often collaborate across teams, contributing to products that range from Python-based automation and Fullstack Angular/Node.js applications to specialized Firmware and System Validation projects. The work is technically demanding, requiring a deep understanding of computer science fundamentals and a practical, problem-solving mindset. Success in this role requires the ability to navigate ambiguity, work on projects from the ground up, and maintain a high standard of technical integrity.

The Agiliad Technologies interview process

Agiliad Technologies candidates report 3 rounds · ≈ 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Recruiter Screen/Aptitude Test

Half of this call is the part candidates treat as small talk: start date, notice period, work authorisation and its timing, location and time zone, on-call, and the number. Those are what kill offers late, after several engineers have each spent a day. Surfacing a hard constraint now costs you nothing and occasionally buys you something, since a loop compressed to fit a competing deadline can usually only be arranged if it is asked for early. The common failure is deflecting the compensation question twice, then discovering at offer stage that the band never reached your number.

What to demonstrate

Whether your hard constraints are compatible with the role before a loop gets booked: earliest start, notice period, what authorisation you hold and when it needs action, days on site, willingness to carry a pager
Whether you give a compensation range with something behind it, such as current total compensation or a competing timeline, rather than leaving the band untested
Whether your stated timeline is real, since a competing deadline raised now is something scheduling can sometimes work around and the same deadline raised at offer stage usually is not

How to prepare

Write each constraint down in one line before the call and state them as facts rather than negotiating them live under a question you were not expecting
Set your range from two or three current data points for that level and location, and name the structure you are quoting in, so the number is comparable to the one they are holding
If another process is running, say where it stands and by when, and ask directly whether this loop can be scheduled inside that window

Technical Interviews

What this round decides is narrow: whether you can produce code that runs and is correct on inputs nobody showed you. An elegant solution that does not compile scores below a plain one that does, so write a correct brute force first, say out loud that you know its cost, and improve it with the working version still on screen. What separates strong answers is who finds the broken case. Trace your own code against an empty input, a single element, and duplicate keys before you say you are finished, because being told is far more expensive than noticing.

What to demonstrate

Whether degenerate inputs get checked without being asked for: an empty collection, one element, every element equal, and the extreme value the input type allows
Whether the complexity you state matches the code you actually wrote, including a sort or a copy sitting inside a loop
Whether the finished answer is verified against the worked examples before you call it done, rather than assumed correct because the code reads correctly

How to prepare

Take five problems you have already solved and, without running anything, write down what each returns for empty input, a single element, and all-duplicates. Then run them and count how many you predicted wrong.
Drill the brute force as its own skill: on ten problems, write only the obviously-correct slow version and time how long it takes to get it passing. If that is more than a few minutes, that is what to practise, not the optimal version.
Add a fixed last step before you submit anything, reading only the loop bounds and the initial value of each accumulator, which is where most off-by-one errors live

HR/Managerial Discussion

You cannot drill a format you do not know, so put the preparation into material that travels. Three pieces of your own work, each rehearsed until you can take a follow-up you did not anticipate, will carry a conversation or a code walkthrough equally well. Specificity is what separates that from filler. A number needs its definition before it means anything: a p99 is over some window and measured at some hop, and a server-side figure excludes the queueing and network time a client would see. The number you cannot qualify is the one to leave out.

What to demonstrate

Whether your examples carry detail only someone who did the work would hold, such as what the binding constraint actually was, which alternative you rejected and why it was worse, and what you measured on each side of the change
Whether a number survives one follow-up, meaning you can say what it was measured over and whether it moved because of your change or merely alongside it
Whether a failure is described with the specific change that followed it, rather than a lesson stated in general terms
Whether your part in a team effort is stated accurately, including what other people did

How to prepare

Write a page on each of three projects covering the constraint, the option you rejected, the measurement before and after, and what went wrong. Cut any line you cannot take a follow-up on, since you are writing the parts you will be pressed on rather than a summary.
Recover the real figures while you still have access: request volume, data size, latency with its percentile and window, team size, timeline. Note where each came from, whether a dashboard, a design document or memory, and mark the estimates so you can say which they are out loud.
Take your weakest project story to someone who works in a different area and have them ask why four times in succession. The point where you run out of answer is the part to go and re-read before the round.

Where candidates lose points

Treating a timed-out write as a failed write

A timeout says the response did not arrive, not that the work did not happen; the server may well have committed and then lost the connection. Retrying a non-idempotent create after a timeout is the standard way to end up with two of something, and those duplicates land precisely when the system is already degraded and least able to absorb them. The discipline is to treat a timeout as unknown: either the write carries an idempotency key so the retry is safe by construction, or the client re-reads authoritative state before deciding what to do, and the interface says unknown rather than showing a failure that invites a second click.

Paginating a growing table with limit and offset

Two unrelated defects share the idiom. Correctness: rows inserted or deleted between page requests shift the window, so a consumer walking an export skips rows and sees others twice, which for a customer-facing sync is silent data loss rather than an error anyone notices. Cost: the database still produces and discards the skipped rows, so page N costs time proportional to N times the page size and a deep page on a large table degrades from milliseconds to seconds. Keyset pagination over a stable, unique, indexed ordering -- where (created_at, id) < ($1, $2) order by created_at desc, id desc limit $3 -- is constant-cost per page and immune to shifting, on the precondition that the cursor columns never change value for a row, which disqualifies updated_at as a cursor.

Answering a debugging question with a guess instead of a bisection

Give a procedure that halves the search space at each step: confirm the symptom reproduces, establish the last known-good version, input or timestamp, then bisect over commits, over the data, or over the layers of the request path. A plausible cause with no way to confirm it is the same move whether it happens to be right or wrong, which is why it scores nothing.

Reading the constraints as preamble rather than as part of the problem

The bounds are usually there to eliminate the obvious approach: n up to 10^5 makes an O(n^2) scan roughly 10^10 operations, far outside any per-test time budget, and an input larger than memory rules out loading it at all. When a bound is not given, ask for it, then say out loud which approach it kills.

Questions & practice

Write a program to find the middle element of a linked list.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.

Follow-up

Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?
How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

Write a program to find a repeated character in a string.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.

Follow-up

What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?

Can you implement the longest common subsequence length?

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.

Follow-up

What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

Explain the time complexity of common data structures like linked lists, vectors, and hash maps.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.

Follow-up

What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

What is the difference between encapsulation, inheritance, and polymorphism?

Medium · languages, concurrency and fundamentals

Approach

Reach for the cheapest primitive that closes the race, not the broadest lock.
Name what is shared across threads and what owns each piece of state.
Identify the window where an invariant is briefly untrue.

Follow-up

Where could this allocate more than you expect?
How would you prove the race exists rather than suspect it?

Can you explain service, directives, and interceptors in the context of Angular?

Medium · languages, concurrency and fundamentals

Approach

Name what is shared across threads and what owns each piece of state.
Distinguish a value from a reference to it, and say which one you handed out.
Identify the window where an invariant is briefly untrue.

Follow-up

Where could this allocate more than you expect?
What happens if two callers reach this at the same time?

Parse and verify a timestamped multi-signature webhook header

Easy · parsing · hmac · constant-time-compare · replay-protection

An inbound webhook carries a signature header of at most 1 KiB shaped t=<unix seconds>,v1=<64 hex chars>, with up to five v1 values during secret rotation and possibly unknown scheme keys. You hold the raw request body bytes and the currently active signing secrets. Write the parser and the verifier: accept when any active secret reproduces a signature and the timestamp is within a five-minute tolerance in either direction, reject otherwise. Single left-to-right pass over the header, no regular expression. State what is inside the MAC and why.

Approach

Parse in one scan: split on ,, then on the first = only, since a value may itself contain = under a future scheme. Accept t exactly once and treat a second t as a reject rather than last-wins. Push every v1 onto a short list and ignore any other key, so a v2 can be introduced later without breaking this verifier.
Say what is signed: HMAC-SHA256 over the exact byte string <t>.<raw body bytes>, yielding 32 bytes or 64 hex characters. The timestamp sits inside the MAC because otherwise an attacker replays yesterday's body with its still-valid signature and only has to edit the header timestamp.
Hash the bytes as received. Verifying against a re-serialised JSON body is the usual defect: key order, whitespace and number formatting all change the bytes while the parsed objects compare equal, so signatures fail for honest senders and the popular 'fix' is to stop checking.
Compare in constant time over fixed-length digests. Decode the hex to 32 bytes, accumulate acc |= a[i] ^ b[i] across the whole length, and test acc == 0 at the end. Evaluate every candidate without an early exit; at five candidates that is five HMACs over the body, linear in body size and negligible beside the network.
Apply the tolerance as a two-sided bound, rejecting when |now - t| > 300 seconds. A sender whose clock runs ahead of yours is an ordinary case, and an unbounded future timestamp is a free replay window.
Complexity: O(L) over the header producing k candidates, plus k HMACs at O(|body|) each. Space is O(k) beyond the body itself. Do the cheap rejections, including the tolerance check, before any cryptography runs.

Worked solution (15 min)

Write the grammar on one line before coding: header := field (',' field)*, field := key '=' value, split on the first = only.
Implement the parser to return {t: int, v1: [hex, ...]}, rejecting a missing t, a duplicate t, any v1 that is not 64 hex characters, and a header over 1 KiB, all before any cryptography runs.
Implement the verifier: for each active secret compute HMAC-SHA256(secret, f'{t}.'.encode() + raw_body), compare it in constant time against each parsed v1, and OR the results with no early exit.
Test with a valid signature; the same body with t moved 400 seconds into the past; the same body with t 400 seconds into the future; a header carrying an unknown v2= alongside a valid v1; and a body re-serialised with different JSON key order.

Expected result: The valid case accepts. Both out-of-tolerance cases reject, including the future one. The unknown v2 field is ignored and the v1 still verifies. The re-serialised body fails, which is correct and is exactly why the raw bytes must be retained.

Verify it yourself

Timing the comparison over 10,000 mismatching signatures that differ at the first character versus the last shows no separation you can measure.
Removing t from the MAC input makes an old captured body with its original signature pass. Write that test, watch it pass, then put t back.
Every rejection except the signature mismatch itself returns before an HMAC is computed.

Follow-up

The body is 40 MB. What changes about where you verify, and what can you do before the whole body has arrived?
A customer reports that signatures fail for exactly the requests whose body contains a non-ASCII character. What is your first hypothesis?
How do you rotate the signing secret with no failed deliveries, and how long do both secrets stay live?

Enforce a concurrent-run quota that survives simultaneous requests

Medium · isolation levels · write skew · quotas · lock contention

A plan allows at most 20 concurrently running rows in job_run per tenant. The table holds run_id, tenant_id, workspace_id, status (queued, leased, running, succeeded, failed, timed_out, cancelled, lost), lease_token, leased_until, started_at and finished_at. Today the service runs select count(*) from job_run where tenant_id = $1 and status = 'running', compares the result to 20, then inserts. Under load a tenant exceeds the cap by exactly the number of concurrent requests. Name the anomaly, say which isolation levels do and do not prevent it, and give a version that holds, as SQL.

Approach

Name it: write skew. Each transaction reads a predicate (the count of running rows), neither modifies what the other read, and both then insert rows that jointly violate an invariant no single row expresses. Read committed permits it. So does repeatable read, because snapshot isolation's first-updater-wins check fires only on conflicting row updates, and these are inserts touching disjoint rows.
Enumerate the fixes with their real costs. SERIALIZABLE works: PostgreSQL's SSI tracks the predicate read and aborts one transaction with SQLSTATE 40001, which obliges the caller to retry and makes the abort rate rise with contention on a hot tenant. Folding the predicate into the write as insert ... select ... where (select count(*) ...) < 20 narrows the race to the statement's snapshot but does not close it under read committed.
Give the version that holds at read committed: serialise on a row both transactions must touch. update tenant_concurrency set running = running + 1 where tenant_id = $1 and running < 20 returning running updates zero rows when the cap is reached, and zero rows is the rejection. This works because at read committed a blocked UPDATE re-evaluates its WHERE clause against the newly committed row; at repeatable read the same statement raises a serialisation error instead, so the isolation level changes the calling contract.
State the cost you just bought. That row is now a per-tenant serialisation point, so admission throughput for the tenant is bounded by one divided by the lock hold time; at a 2 ms hold that is roughly 500 admissions/second. Keep the critical section to the single UPDATE, with no network call or scheduling decision inside the transaction, and decrement in the same transaction that writes the terminal status.
Close the leak the status enum implies: a run can end as lost, so a crashed worker otherwise consumes a slot forever. Reconcile on a schedule against status = 'running' and leased_until < now(), and treat the counter as a fast path over job_run, which stays the system of record.

Worked solution (25 min)

Seed a tenant with 19 running rows, then fire 8 concurrent sessions each running the select-then-insert, and count the resulting running rows.
Repeat at REPEATABLE READ and confirm the count still exceeds 20.
Repeat at SERIALIZABLE, count the 40001 aborts, and note that without a retry loop those requests fail rather than queue.
Implement the atomic counter UPDATE, re-run the 8-way test, and confirm exactly 20 running rows with zero over-admissions.
Kill a worker mid-run, let the lease expire, and check whether the slot comes back without intervention.

Expected result: Write skew identified; read committed and repeatable read both permit it; serialisable prevents it at the price of 40001 retries; the working read-committed version is update tenant_concurrency set running = running + 1 where tenant_id = $1 and running < 20 returning running, whose zero-row result is the rejection, plus a reconciliation path for runs that terminate as 'lost'.

Verify it yourself

At 8x concurrency against a cap of 20, running rows never exceed 20.
The rejection returns zero rows rather than raising, so it is distinguishable from an error in the caller.
Killing a worker does not permanently consume a slot.
The counter and select count(*) from job_run where status = 'running' agree after reconciliation.

Follow-up

Write the retry loop for the SERIALIZABLE version. What does the caller see when it keeps aborting, and what bounds the retries?
Two regions each keep a counter. What is the effective cap, and what does admission do when the counter store is unreachable?
The cap changes mid-flight on a plan upgrade. Do running jobs get killed, and what does the counter row look like during the change?

Model credential revocation so history survives the delete

Easy · soft delete · partial indexes · check constraints · audit history

tenant_api_key stores key_id, tenant_id, workspace_id, name, key_prefix, secret_hash, scopes text[], status (active, revoked, expired, compromised), auth_version, created_at, expires_at, last_used_at, revoked_at, revoked_reason. Rotation inserts a new row and revocation never deletes, because an incident review asks which credential served a request last quarter. Write the constraints that enforce: a label is unique only among a tenant's live keys, revoked_at and status can never disagree, and scopes is never empty. Then write the authentication lookup predicate, and name one column in this table that must stay out of it.

Approach

Reach for a partial unique index rather than a plain UNIQUE: create unique index on tenant_api_key (tenant_id, name) where revoked_at is null. Any number of revoked rows may share a label, the live namespace stays unique per tenant, and the revoked majority is not in the index at all, so it stays small on a table that only grows.
Tie the nullable timestamp to the enum so the two cannot drift: check ((revoked_at is not null) = (status in ('revoked','compromised'))) and check ((revoked_at is null) = (revoked_reason is null)). A revocation that records no reason is the one an incident review cannot use.
Write the emptiness check as check (cardinality(scopes) > 0), not array_length(scopes, 1) > 0. array_length returns NULL for an empty array, a CHECK constraint passes when its expression is NULL, so the array_length version accepts exactly the value it was written to reject.
Make the lookup a single index probe with every liveness condition inside it: where secret_hash = $1 and revoked_at is null and (expires_at is null or expires_at > now()) and auth_version = $2, backed by a unique index on secret_hash. Nothing is filtered in application code, so there is no path that forgets a clause.
Keep last_used_at out of that predicate. It is written asynchronously and is allowed to lag by a minute, so it is a usage signal; feeding it into an authorisation decision makes the decision depend on a write that may be late, batched away or lost.
Flag the modelling smell while you are here: expired is derivable from expires_at < now(), so storing it as a status obliges a job to keep it true and guarantees the column is wrong between the expiry instant and that job's next run. Derive it in the predicate; keep the stored status for states that are decisions rather than clock readings.

Follow-up

Rotation issues a replacement while the old key stays live for a 30-day overlap. What does the uniqueness rule become, and what does the UI show to tell two same-named keys apart?
A password reset bumps the principal's auth_version. No row in this table changed. How does the next request fail, and what query counts how many keys that bump just killed?
A key turns up in a public repository. Which columns let you find it, and what do you write to the row?

Explain the concepts of Operating System scheduling and Computer Networking layers.

Medium

Approach

Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
Work from the requirement backwards to the design.

Follow-up

What assumption would you test first?
How would you know your answer was wrong?

Specify webhook signature verification a customer can implement

Easy · webhooks · hmac · replay protection

The webhook-delivery service signs each payload before POSTing it to a customer endpoint. Write the signature specification a customer implements in their own language: the header format, exactly which bytes are signed, the algorithm, how replay is bounded, and how a signing secret rotates without a delivery gap. Then write the verification steps the customer performs, in order, including what they compare and what they return on failure. Constraint: most customers reach for their web framework's parsed JSON body by default. Deliverable: the spec section plus reference pseudocode.

Approach

Sign the concatenation of the timestamp and the raw body, t + "." + body, and emit a header of the form t=<unix seconds>,v1=<hex>. The timestamp has to be inside the MAC, or an attacker re-stamps a captured body and the tolerance window buys nothing.
Require the raw request bytes. A framework that parses JSON and re-serialises it changes key order, whitespace and number formatting, so the spec must tell the customer to capture the body before the parser runs and give the middleware note for each common framework.
Use HMAC-SHA256, not sha256(secret || body): SHA-256 is a Merkle-Damgard construction, so the naive form admits length extension. Require a constant-time comparison as well, since a short-circuiting byte compare leaks the expected prefix under repeated probing.
Bound replay in two layers: reject when |now - t| exceeds a stated tolerance such as 300 seconds, then deduplicate on the event identifier header. The tolerance is what makes the customer's dedup store finite rather than unbounded.
Rotate by allowing two live secrets and emitting both signatures in one header (v1=<old>,v1=<new>); the customer accepts if any candidate matches, so neither side needs an instantaneous cutover. A failed verification returns 400 and the body is not processed.

Worked solution (15 min)

Write the header grammar and one real example line with a plausible timestamp and hex digest.
Write the signed string construction explicitly as a byte concatenation, and add the sentence telling the customer where in their framework to obtain the raw body.
Write the five verification steps in order: extract t and candidates, check the tolerance, recompute the HMAC over t + '.' + raw body, compare in constant time against each candidate, then deduplicate on the event identifier.
Add the rotation paragraph: two active secrets, both signatures sent, overlap window stated in the dashboard.
State the failure response and the fact that the payload is not processed, plus what the sender does with that 400.

Expected result: A spec where the signed input is the timestamp joined to the exact raw bytes, the algorithm is HMAC-SHA256 compared in constant time, replay is bounded by a stated tolerance plus event-id deduplication, and rotation is an overlap of two accepted signatures rather than a cutover.

Verify it yourself

The timestamp is inside the signed string, not merely sent alongside it.
The spec names raw bytes and says where the customer gets them before parsing.
Rotation requires no coordinated instant on either side.
The reason for HMAC over sha256(secret || body) is stated as length extension, not as a preference.

Follow-up

A customer's verification passes locally and fails in production behind a proxy that re-encodes the response body. Where do you look first?
Why sign with a per-endpoint secret rather than the tenant's API key?

One tenant's counter writes stall the whole connection pool

Medium · lock contention · connection pool · multi-tenancy

A change that made a per-tenant usage counter correct now produces site-wide latency whenever one large tenant writes: unrelated endpoints time out waiting for a connection while database CPU stays low and no statement is slow. The change wraps the counter update in a transaction that takes SELECT ... FOR UPDATE on one row, calls an external pricing service, then updates and commits. Give an ordered checklist, the arithmetic that bounds that tenant's write rate, and three repairs with the cost each one accepts.

Approach

Separate waiting from working. Low database CPU alongside high application latency points at a queue, so instrument connection-acquisition wait separately from query execution time; that queue forms in the application and is invisible in database metrics, which is why the database looks healthy throughout.
Confirm the lock rather than assuming it: sample waiting sessions and group by wait event, relation and tuple. Contention concentrated on one tuple belonging to one tenant is the signature; a deadlock would instead show the database aborting transactions after its detection timeout, which is not happening here.
Do the arithmetic out loud. Throughput on a serialised row is one divided by the lock hold time, and the hold spans the external call, so a 20 ms pricing call caps that tenant near 50 writes per second no matter how many pods run. Every waiter also holds a pooled connection while it queues, so the shared pool drains and unrelated tenants fail at acquisition.
Repair one: shrink the critical section to a single statement with the price resolved before the transaction opens. Cost is a stale price for the duration of one request and a second round trip; benefit is a hold time measured in the database's own execution time.
Repairs two and three change where the contention lives rather than how long it is held. Sharding the counter into per-(tenant, bucket) rows and summing on read multiplies write throughput by the shard count, at the cost of an aggregate on every read and a shard count you must size against the largest tenant rather than the median. Accumulating in memory and flushing periodically removes the per-write round trip entirely, paid for with a bounded loss window on crash, which is acceptable for a rate limiter and not for a billing counter.
Contain independently of which repair wins: a separate pool or per-tenant concurrency cap for this write class, a statement timeout low enough that a pathological query dies before it accumulates waiters, and an idle-in-transaction timeout so a stuck client cannot pin a connection and its locks.

Follow-up

What would a genuine deadlock look like here, which two code paths would produce one, and how does the database's response differ from what you observed?
If a transaction-pooling proxy sits in front of the database, which of your three repairs changes behaviour, and what stops working that would have worked on a direct connection?
The counter also enforces a quota. Why is SELECT the count and then INSERT still wrong after you have fixed the contention?

Suggested practice checklist

Four days sample coding, design, fundamentals and the practical rounds at deliberately shallow depth, which is enough to surface the topics you did not know were in scope. That map, rather than a guess made on day one, decides where the last three days go.

Day 1 — Coding, one pass at shallow depth

Solve one problem from each of six families, an array with two pointers, hash counting, binary search, a tree traversal, a graph traversal and one dynamic program, under a hard twenty-minute cap with no extensions, marking each finished, late, or stalled.
For every stall, write the exact move you could not make rather than the subject, so the note reads could not turn the recurrence into a loop rather than bad at dynamic programming.
Fix nothing today. The value of the pass is the unfixed record.

Deliverable: Six timed attempts marked finished, late or stalled, each stall carrying a named blocking move.

Day 2 — Design, one pass at shallow depth

Spend twenty minutes each on three different shapes, a read-heavy feed, a write-heavy ingest path, and something needing a transaction across two entities, stopping each at requirements, interface and data model.
After each, write the first question you could not answer, which is usually a number you could not estimate or a failure mode you had no vocabulary for.
Mark which of the three you would be most relieved not to be asked, and treat that as data rather than as a preference.

Deliverable: Three shallow designs, each with the first unanswerable question written at the bottom.

Day 3 — Fundamentals and the practical rounds

Answer eight short questions in writing at four minutes each, covering the material that fills the gaps between the big rounds: what happens between a URL and a rendered page, what an index costs on write, when a process is preferable to a thread, and what conditions a deadlock requires.
Do one thirty-minute practical task of the kind a take-home compresses: read an unfamiliar two-hundred-line file and write what it does, what you would change, and the one thing you remain unsure of.
Score every answer fluent, correct but slow, or absent, and keep the absent ones visible.

Deliverable: Eight scored short answers and one written reading of unfamiliar code.

Day 4 — The rounds that are about you, and the map

Deliver three behavioural answers aloud against a timer, a conflict, a failure you owned, and a decision made without enough information, marking any that ran past three minutes or contained no number.
Assemble the map: every marked item from days one to three on a single page, sorted by how likely it is to appear in your loop rather than by how uncomfortable it felt.
Choose exactly two areas for the remaining three days and write down what you are deliberately abandoning.

Deliverable: A one-page scored map of the whole surface area with two areas chosen and the rest explicitly abandoned.

Day 5 — First chosen area, to the depth you skipped

Work the higher-ranked area in four focused blocks, choosing items one level above where you stalled rather than repeating what already works.
After each block write the rule you extracted in one sentence with its precondition attached, since a rule carrying no precondition is exactly what fails under a variation.
Re-attempt the day-one or day-two item that exposed this area and compare against the original timing.

Deliverable: Four worked blocks, a timed re-attempt against the original, and three one-sentence rules with preconditions.

Day 6 — Second chosen area, where the gap is coverage rather than speed

Treat the second area differently from the first. Day five drilled something you could already half-do; this one is usually a topic you had simply never met, so build one worked reference example end to end and keep it, rather than attempting six problems badly.
Write down the vocabulary you were missing on day two or three, five terms at most, each with the one sentence that makes it usable in an answer rather than the textbook definition.
Redo the shallow attempt that exposed this area and note whether you now fail later in the problem, because moving the failure point is the realistic gain from a single day and is worth more than a score that did not change.

Deliverable: One worked reference example for the newly covered area, a five-term vocabulary list, and a note on where the failure point moved.

Day 7 — Reassemble the loop

Sit two rounds back to back with no gap, ordering them so the area you chose second comes last, because the map was built from rested, isolated attempts and the loop will reach your weaker area when you are already spent.
Write where the second round suffered from the first, which is normally the point at which structure collapses into narration.
Reduce the week to one page holding only the rules you can state without reading them.

Deliverable: Mock notes on cross-round carryover plus a one-page card of rules you can recite from memory.

Bounding a vague ticket before writing code

When the requirements were thin, the interesting part is how you fenced the problem off: the assumption you wrote down, who you got to confirm it, the narrow version you shipped first so the rest stayed cheap to change. Guessing and being right is luck. Guessing in writing, where someone could correct you, is method.

Describe a time you faced a difficult technical bug; how did you debug it?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.

Follow-up

How did you know your change caused the improvement?
What did you decide not to do, and why?

Ship metered billing with a named deduplication horizon

Medium · technical debt · deduplication · deadline pressure · detectors

Metered billing must be on in three weeks. usage_event is partitioned daily, so its unique index must include the partition key and deduplicates only within a day: a producer retry that crosses midnight, or a replay run a week later, gets through. A cross-partition dedup store is two weeks you do not have. Describe shipping with debt you named in advance: what you shipped, what you wrote down, the detector you added, the trigger and date for paying it off, and what you would have refused to ship under the same pressure.

Approach

Show you can separate the two kinds of debt, because that distinction is what the question actually probes. Debt that costs engineering time later is shippable on a deadline. Debt that silently corrupts a number a customer gets charged for is not shippable unless the corruption is detectable, and detectability is the whole negotiation.
Make the exposure narrow and measured rather than gestural. The hole is duplicates whose occurrences straddle a UTC day boundary, plus any replay older than partition retention. Measure it before arguing about it: how often an idempotency_key recurs at all, and the distribution of the gap between first and last occurrence. If the ninety-ninth percentile of that gap is four minutes, the residual risk is a small band around midnight and you can say so numerically.
Add the detector before the feature, not after. A nightly job counting keys that appear in more than one partition is one grouped scan over recent partitions, and it converts a silent overcount into a page. State what it costs to run and what it fires on.
Buy the cheap half of the real fix immediately: extend partition retention so the dedup horizon exceeds the producer's maximum retry window plus the longest replay you intend to support. That reframes retention as a correctness parameter rather than a storage cost, which is the sentence you need on record before someone optimises the bill.
Make repayment mechanical instead of aspirational: a dated entry with a named owner, plus a threshold that pulls the date forward — first detector hit above N events, or first customer dispute. Debt with a trigger gets paid; debt with only a date does not.
Answer the second half honestly by naming what you would refuse under identical pressure: the sealing path, because a sealed row is frozen and a wrong number there stops being a bug and becomes an adjustment line, a dispute and an audit question.

Follow-up

The detector fires on forty duplicate events for one tenant, and two of their invoices have already sealed. What happens next?
Whom did you tell that the billing numbers had a known hole, and in what words?
Finance asks you to cut storage by shortening partition retention. What do you say, and to whom?

Own the incident where invoices undercounted metered usage

Medium · incident response · at-least-once · billing correction · postmortem

A metering consumer acknowledged each batch before committing the fold into usage_rollup_hourly. A rolling deploy restarted consumers mid-batch for two hours; roughly 1.4M usage_event rows were acknowledged and never folded, and 61 invoices sealed against the resulting rollups before anyone noticed. Take the owner's role. Describe an incident of comparable blast radius you owned: how it surfaced, the query that sized the loss, what you stopped first, and how the money was corrected. Give a wall-clock timeline and one thing you got wrong while it was still live.

Approach

Open with the invariant that broke and the direction of the error, because they determine everything else: acknowledging before committing makes the consumer at-most-once, so this loses events rather than duplicating them, and loss raises no error anywhere. A listener who hears 'we lost revenue silently' knows immediately why detection took two hours.
Size it with a stated reconciliation rather than an adjective: sum(quantity) from usage_event grouped by (tenant_id, sku, hour of occurred_at) over the window, against usage_rollup_hourly.quantity_sum on the same keys, filtered to environment='production' because staging and sandbox are metered but not billed. Then bisect by hour and tenant until single cells explain the gap. Say how long that ran and whether a replica could serve it while the incident was live.
Separate mitigation from fix and say which came first. Mitigation is holding the sealing job, because a sealed row is frozen by design and every minute of sealing converts a recoverable rollup into an invoice correction. The fix is moving the acknowledgement after the commit, which re-introduces duplicates that the dedup check on (tenant_id, idempotency_key) must now absorb.
State the correction path in the domain's own terms: sealed periods are never edited, so each affected tenant gets an adjustment line on the next invoice with kind='adjustment' and voided_by_line_id pointing at the line it reverses, priced against the same rate tier and carrying the watermark it priced against. That is four separate numbers — tenants affected, minor units, the cycle the adjustment lands in, and when customers were told.
Close on one prevention control with its cost, not five: a per-hour reconciliation comparing raw sum to rollup sum that pages above a threshold. Name the threshold and the false-page rate you accepted, because a detector nobody will keep staffed is not prevention.
Name a mistake you made inside the response window — the wrong first hypothesis, a mitigation that made it worse — rather than a design mistake from six months earlier. That is the part candidates rehearse away and interviewers weight heavily.

Follow-up

Your fix moves the acknowledgement after the commit. What breaks now, and what absorbs it?
One undercharged tenant has since churned. Do you bill them, and who decides?
How would you have caught this in ten minutes instead of two hours, and what would that detector cost you in pages per week?