Algoworks Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The 60-second brief

A Software Engineer at Algoworks is a pivotal role responsible for delivering high-quality, scalable solutions for global clients. As a firm that specializes in product development, mobility, and enterprise solutions like Salesforce, Algoworks looks for engineers who can bridge the gap between complex business requirements and robust technical execution. You will often work within cross-functional teams to build, maintain, and optimize software that drives significant value for end-users.

Most rounds test how you handle an under-specified problem more than what you recall. A wrong first approach you correct out loud is recoverable; a constraint you assumed silently and were never given is the expensive mistake.

Focus areas

• Scope every query and cache key by tenant
• Keep money in integer minor units
• Make every write idempotent under client retries

Overview

The environment is fast-paced and highly dynamic, requiring you to adapt quickly to different technology stacks—ranging from.NET Core and Angular to Python and Salesforce ecosystems. This role is not just about writing code; it is about demonstrating strong logical aptitude and problem-solving capabilities. You will be expected to contribute to project architecture, troubleshoot production issues, and maintain a high standard of code quality while navigating the unique challenges of a service-oriented organization.

The Algoworks interview process

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

Initial Screening

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 Rounds

Input bounds are the part of the prompt most often skimmed, and they usually contain the answer. They tell you which complexity class is admissible, which narrows the search before you have thought about the problem itself. As a rough planning figure, a compiled language does on the order of 10^8 simple operations per second and an interpreted one roughly an order of magnitude less. So n up to about twenty admits enumerating subsets, a few thousand admits a quadratic pass, and a million admits neither: you need near-linear, or linear with a log factor. If the bounds are missing, ask for them.

What to demonstrate

• Whether the approach is justified by the stated input size rather than by whichever pattern you recognised first
• Whether you ask about the properties that change the algorithm: whether the input arrives sorted, whether duplicates occur, whether values are bounded integers, whether it all fits in memory
• Whether you can name the bottleneck in your own solution and what would remove it, even when you deliberately leave it in place
• Whether a claimed speedup is real, since memoising a recursion only helps when subproblems genuinely overlap and the state can be keyed cheaply

How to prepare

• For each algorithm you rely on, write down the largest n it handles in roughly a second, then check two of those figures by timing them in the language you will actually type in
• For two weeks, write one line naming your target complexity and the bound that justifies it before you write any code, then compare that line with what you ended up submitting
• Practise the conversion backwards: given a required O(n log n), list the mechanisms that get you there (sorting, a heap, an ordered map, divide and conquer) and choose by what the problem needs to query, not by what you used last

Final Interview

Where the day includes a partner from product, design or data, that conversation is weighted like the technical ones and prepared for least. They are deciding one thing: whether having you in the room makes their decisions cheaper. That means options with costs attached, not implementation detail and not "it depends". An estimate someone can plan against — a range, the assumption that would push it to the high end, and what you would drop to hit the low one — is worth more than a confident single number, which everyone present already knows is wrong.

What to demonstrate

• Whether an estimate comes as a range with the assumption most likely to break it, and states what a specific scope cut would actually buy
• Whether a technical constraint is handed over as a choice with consequences on their side, rather than as a verdict they have no standing to argue with
• Whether you establish what decision is on the table before proposing anything
• Whether risk is raised while it can still change the plan, with the trigger that would confirm it, instead of reported afterwards as a slip

How to prepare

• Take a project that shipped late and write the two-sentence warning you could have given three weeks earlier, naming what you would have needed decided at that point
• Rehearse one estimate out loud until it arrives in three parts: the range, the single assumption that would blow it, and the smallest thing you would cut to protect the date
• Rewrite an objection you have actually made — the "we can't do that" version — as two options with their costs, so the choice ends up with the person who owns it

Where candidates lose points

Serialising a tenant's writes through select ... for update on a single counter row

It is the first change that makes a counter correct, and it caps that tenant's write throughput at roughly one divided by the lock hold time. A transaction that takes the lock, makes a network call and then commits holds it for the entire round trip: at 2 ms that is about 500 writes per second for the whole tenant, and the largest tenants are exactly the ones that exceed it. The damage then spreads, because every waiter holds a database connection while it queues, so one hot tenant drains the shared pool and the symptom presents as a site-wide latency incident rather than as a lock problem. The repairs are to shrink the critical section to a single statement, to shard the counter into per-(tenant, hour) or per-(tenant, bucket) rows and sum on read, or to batch in memory and flush periodically while accepting the bounded loss that batching implies.

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.

Choosing a schema before the access patterns are known

Write the queries first, with their filters, sort orders, cardinalities and which ones sit on the latency-critical path, then design tables and indexes to serve them. An index nothing queries still costs write throughput and storage, and a hot query with no supporting index becomes a full scan that only hurts once the table is big.

Sorting when the problem never required a total order

Match the algorithm to the guarantee actually needed: the top k comes from a size-k heap in O(n log k) time and O(k) space, distinctness needs a set rather than an ordering, and a small bounded integer key range admits a linear counting pass. A full O(n log n) sort is the right default only when you genuinely need everything in order.

Questions & practice

How do you check if a number is an Armstrong number?

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

1. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
2. Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
3. Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.

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 Bubble Sort vs. Selection Sort.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

1. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
2. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
3. 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?

How would you reverse a string of n characters?

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

1. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
2. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
3. Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.

Follow-up

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

Write a program to find prime numbers between two given numbers.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

1. Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
2. Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
3. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.

Follow-up

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

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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)

1. Write the grammar on one line before coding: header := field (',' field)*, field := key '=' value, split on the first = only.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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?

Migrate a live partitioned event table without blocking ingest

Hard · online migration · ddl locks · expand and contract · partitioning

usage_event is range-partitioned daily on ingested_at, holds roughly 250M rows per day across 400 live partitions, and is written at 10-40k rows/second. Two changes are required: quantity must move from double precision to numeric(20,6), and a new environment column must become NOT NULL with a default of 'production'. Ingest cannot stop. Give the ordered plan, naming for each step the lock it takes, what that lock blocks, and roughly how long it is held. Identify the one step that cannot be rolled back cleanly once traffic depends on it.

Approach

1. Classify the two changes before planning anything. Adding a column with a non-volatile default has been metadata-only since PostgreSQL 11, so it is cheap. Changing double precision to numeric is not binary-coercible, so alter column ... type rewrites every partition under ACCESS EXCLUSIVE and rebuilds its indexes; on this volume that is hours of blocked ingest and is simply not an option, which is why the plan is expand-and-contract rather than one statement.
2. Expand: add quantity_numeric numeric(20,6) and environment with its default on the parent. Both are catalogue-only but both take a brief ACCESS EXCLUSIVE that cascades to partitions, so run each with lock_timeout set to a second or two and retry on failure. A queued ACCESS EXCLUSIVE request blocks every reader behind it, which is how a metadata-only change turns into an outage.
3. Dual-write: deploy producer code that populates both columns on every insert, and leave it running before anything reads the new column. This is the step that cannot be reverted cleanly. Once readers depend on quantity_numeric, reverting the writer leaves rows with a null there, and the gap is only discoverable by re-reading the old column, which the readers have stopped doing.
4. Backfill older partitions in batches keyed on the primary key, oldest first, committing every few thousand rows with a pause between batches, and skipping the partition still receiving writes until it rotates. Each batch is an ordinary UPDATE taking row locks only. The cost is bloat and WAL rather than blocking, so watch dead tuples and let autovacuum keep pace instead of wrapping 400 partitions in one transaction.
5. Make NOT NULL cheap with the three-step form: add constraint ... check (environment is not null) not valid (brief ACCESS EXCLUSIVE, no scan), then validate constraint (SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE, scans while reads and writes continue), then set not null, which from PostgreSQL 12 uses the validated check and skips its own full scan. Do this per partition, then on the parent.
6. Switch and contract: move reads to the new column behind a flag, verify over a full period that both columns agree on freshly written rows, drop the old column (metadata-only), and only then remove the dual-write. Any index on the new column goes on with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY per partition, since CIC is not supported on a partitioned parent: create the parent index with ONLY, build each child concurrently, then ALTER INDEX ... ATTACH PARTITION until the parent index becomes valid.

Follow-up

• A CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY fails halfway through the partition list. What state is the table in, how do you detect it, and what do you run?
• The producer computes quantity itself. What happens to a request already in flight when the dual-write deploy lands, and does it matter?
• Give two queries that prove the backfill is complete: one cheap enough to run every minute, one authoritative.

Decide which facts an invoice line copies instead of joining

Medium · denormalisation · immutable records · foreign keys · rounding

invoice_line_item already denormalises tenant_id, which is reachable through invoice_id, and stores amount_minor even though quantity times unit_price_micros would recompute it. A reviewer asks you to normalise both away, and separately asks whether the tenant's legal name and billing address should be copied onto the invoice header. Decide each case. For every field you keep denormalised, name the read pattern or the invariant that justifies it, the anomaly the copy can develop, and the mechanism that prevents that anomaly here.

Approach

1. Split the question into two kinds of copy, because they fail differently. A copy of a currently mutable fact is a cache: it drifts and needs invalidation. A copy of a fact frozen at write time is not a cache at all, it is the record of what happened, and normalising it away destroys information the source no longer holds.
2. Keep tenant_id on the line. It costs 8 bytes, it leads every index on the table so no read is ever accidentally cross-tenant, and it turns a wrong join into an empty result rather than another tenant's money. Prevent the drift structurally: a unique constraint on invoice (invoice_id, tenant_id) plus a composite foreign key from the line on (invoice_id, tenant_id) makes a mismatched pair impossible, so the database enforces agreement instead of a code review.
3. Keep amount_minor. Rounding must happen exactly once, at a named site, with a stated mode (half-even here). If readers recompute from quantity and unit_price_micros, every reader owns a rounding decision, and half-up and half-even diverge systematically across thousands of lines rather than cancelling out. A check constraint can bound the stored value but deliberately cannot re-derive it.
4. Copy the legal name and billing address onto the invoice header, written once and never updated. The statement must show what was true when it was sealed, and the tenant record will change afterwards. This is a snapshot for the same reason source_rollup_watermark is stored per line: without it, nobody can reconstruct what the customer was told.
5. Name the read pattern that pays for all of it. Rendering, dispute response and export are per-tenant, per-period reads over thousands of lines that would otherwise join back to slowly changing dimensions that no longer hold the historical value. The write side is a once-per-period batch, so the extra columns cost nothing that matters.
6. Concede the case where the reviewer is right: a mutable operational attribute such as the tenant's current plan name has no business on a line. If a report wants it, join. If a statement needs the plan as of the period, that is another snapshot and it belongs on the header with the rest.

Worked solution (25 min)

1. Write the DDL: unique (invoice_id, tenant_id) on invoice, the composite FK from the line, and a comment on each denormalised column saying whether it is a snapshot or a cache.
2. Attempt to insert a line whose tenant_id differs from its invoice's and confirm the foreign key rejects it.
3. Rename a tenant, re-render a sealed invoice, and confirm the rendered name is the one stored on the header.
4. Recompute amount_minor from quantity times unit_price_micros for a thousand synthetic lines rounding half-up, sum both ways, and record the divergence from the stored half-even values.

Expected result: tenant_id kept and enforced by a composite foreign key to (invoice_id, tenant_id); amount_minor kept because rounding happens once with a stated mode; legal name and billing address snapshotted onto the invoice header and never updated; mutable operational attributes left normalised. Each decision paired with its read pattern, its anomaly, and the mechanism that prevents the anomaly.

Verify it yourself

• A line cannot be attached to an invoice belonging to another tenant, and the rejection comes from the database rather than the application.
• Re-rendering a sealed invoice after editing the tenant record produces identical output.
• Rounding per line and rounding once at the end differ measurably over a thousand lines, which is the argument for storing the value.
• No column on the line is recomputed by any reader.

Follow-up

• Write the composite foreign key and the unique constraint it requires on the parent. What does it cost on every line insert, and what does it do to a bulk load?
• A tenant is renamed after being invoiced. Which rows change, and what does the customer see on last quarter's PDF?
• Where does currency live, and what breaks if a tenant's billing currency changes between two periods?

How would you find the top 3 fastest horses among 25 horses using only 5 race tracks?

Medium

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

What are the differences between while and do-while loops?

Medium

Approach

1. Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
2. State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
3. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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)

1. Write the header grammar and one real example line with a plausible timestamp and hex digest.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Add the rotation paragraph: two active secrets, both signatures sent, overlap window stated in the dashboard.
5. 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?

Gateway p99 spikes on a five-minute cadence

Medium · cache stampede · ttl · invalidation

edge-gateway caches each credential-to-authorisation-context decision for five minutes. p99 sits at 6 ms except for a spike to 900 ms roughly every five minutes, worst in the region with the most pods, and control-plane CPU and read latency rise in step with it. The error rate stays near zero. Customers are told a revoked credential stops authorising within 60 seconds. Give the ordered checklist that identifies the mechanism, and a fix that removes the spike without weakening the 60-second bound.

Approach

1. Test periodicity before anything else: take the spike timestamps modulo the TTL in seconds. A tight cluster at a fixed offset means expiry phase, while traffic-driven spikes scatter.
2. Overlay pod start times. Entries filled at first request inherit the phase of the pod that filled them, so a cohort of pods deployed together expires together and the amplitude should track cohort size rather than tenant count.
3. Separate a herd from a capacity shortfall by measuring control-plane requests per second during a spike against baseline. A stampede shows a step of roughly (pods x hot keys) for one interval with hit rate collapsing to near zero, not a gradual climb that would indicate the dependency is simply undersized.
4. Apply three independent controls: randomise each key's TTL by a factor drawn uniformly from something like 0.8 to 1.0 so cohorts de-phase; coalesce concurrent misses per key per pod so exactly one refresh is in flight; and serve the stale value while that refresh runs so a miss costs the stale read rather than the dependency's queue.
5. Bound staleness against the published contract rather than against comfort: serve-stale is admissible only up to the 60-second revocation bound, so the TTL floor and the stale window together must stay inside it, and the published invalidation must delete the entry rather than schedule a refresh.
6. Decide in advance what a miss does when the control plane is unreachable, because that is now the only uncached path: failing closed converts a dependency outage into a total outage, while extending stale service past the bound breaks the revocation promise. Pick one and configure it explicitly.

Follow-up

• Publish-subscribe invalidation is lossy under a partition. Given that, what actually enforces the 60-second bound, and what number would you put in the contract if asked to defend it?
• One tenant's key is hot enough that a single pod's coalesced refresh still matters. What changes?
• Would a shared cache tier in front of the control plane help or shift the problem, and what new failure does it add?

Suggested practice checklist

For a candidate senior enough that the loop turns on design and judgement rather than on whether the coding round gets finished. Five days build one system properly and then stress it; coding gets a single maintenance day, on the assumption that the risk at this level is an unexamined tradeoff rather than a missed algorithm.

Day 1 — Numbers before diagrams

• Build your own reference card of the figures you will re-derive all week: bytes for a realistic record, requests per second implied by a given daily active count, and the storage that a year at a given write rate produces. Derive each one rather than copying it, because the derivation is what survives a follow-up.
• Turn one product statement into capacity requirements. From ten million daily users at four writes and forty reads each, state the peak-to-average factor you are assuming and why, then produce peak write QPS, peak read QPS and a year of storage.
• Write the two numbers whose order of magnitude changes the design, the read-to-write ratio and the working-set size against memory per node, and state the threshold at which each one flips your answer.

Deliverable: A one-page numbers card and one worked capacity estimate with every assumption written down.

Day 2 — One system, from requirements to schema

• Spend the first ten minutes producing only functional requirements, non-functional targets with numbers attached, a p99 latency, a durability expectation, a consistency requirement, and an explicit out-of-scope list.
• Define the interface before the boxes: the three or four endpoints, their parameters, what each returns, and which of them are idempotent.
• Write the data model, then write the single access pattern that justifies it, and state what the schema would have to become if the dominant access pattern were the other one.

Deliverable: One design carried to endpoint-and-schema depth, with non-functional targets expressed as numbers and a written out-of-scope list.

Day 3 — The consistency you are actually buying

• Write out what a client sees under asynchronous replication when its write commits on the leader and its next read is served by a lagging follower, then write the two fixes, pinning that session's reads to the leader for a bounded window or carrying a version token the replica must reach, and the cost of each.
• Work the quorum arithmetic on paper for N of three with W and R of two, and separate what R + W > N does guarantee, that any read set intersects any write set, from what it does not: on its own it is not linearizability, and a sloppy quorum that accepts writes on nodes outside the preference list breaks even the intersection.
• Take two storage choices with different defaults, a single-leader relational store committing synchronously and a quorum-replicated store that converges eventually, and write the specific product behaviour that would be wrong under each, rather than a general statement about which is stronger.

Deliverable: A page separating what quorum overlap guarantees from what it does not, with one concrete product misbehaviour attached to each gap.

Day 4 — Failure is the design

• For one write path, work through the case where the client times out after the server has already committed, then design the idempotency key: who generates it, how long it is retained, and what the duplicate request returns.
• Express the retry policy as parameters rather than as a word: maximum attempts, base delay, backoff factor, jitter, and which error classes are retried at all. Then state why retrying a non-idempotent write without a key is a correctness bug and not merely waste.
• Compute the fan-out effect on tail latency. If a request waits on ten backends and each independently exceeds its p99 one percent of the time, the chance at least one is slow is 1 - 0.99^10, about ten percent. Then write why independence is the optimistic assumption and what correlates them in practice.
• Name the backpressure mechanism for one queue or one dependency in the design, a bounded queue with shedding or a concurrency limit, and write what the caller is told when it engages.

Deliverable: One write path with an idempotency design, a parameterised retry policy, and a written tail-latency calculation with its assumption named.

Day 5 — Scaling the hot path

• Choose cache-aside or write-through for one read path and write the staleness window each produces, then name the invalidation event and what the system does when that event is lost.
• Design against the stampede: either coalesce requests so only one recomputes a missing key, or refresh early with jittered expiry, and write why identical TTLs on keys populated in the same moment produce a synchronised expiry and a thundering herd.
• Shard one table by a key you choose, then answer the two questions that break the choice: which queries now require a scatter-gather, and what happens to the distribution when one tenant is a hundred times larger than the median.
• Write the cost of adding a node under plain modulo placement, where nearly every key moves, against consistent hashing, where roughly one key in n+1 moves, and state what virtual nodes are for.

Deliverable: A caching and sharding decision for one path, each with its failure mode and its rebalancing cost written beside it.

Day 6 — Keep the coding hand in, at the bar that applies to you

• Solve one medium problem in thirty minutes, then spend twenty more making it production-shaped: named invariants, validation at the boundary, and errors that distinguish a caller mistake from an internal fault.
• Write the tests you would require of a colleague's version of that function: one for empty input, one for the boundary, and one for the case the implementation is most likely to get wrong.
• Read a piece of your own code from six months ago and write the change you would ask for, phrased as you would actually phrase it in review.

Deliverable: One problem hardened to review standard, with its test list and one written review comment.

Day 7 — Defend it while being interrupted

• Run a forty-five-minute design mock with an interviewer briefed to change a requirement halfway, a tenfold traffic increase or a new strict consistency requirement, and to push on one number you estimated.
• Rehearse the two sentences a senior loop is listening for: naming the tradeoff you are choosing against and why, and saying what you would measure to learn that the choice was wrong.
• Prepare the design you regret: a real decision, the constraint that produced it, what it cost, and what you changed afterwards.

Deliverable: Mock notes recording how the design changed under the new requirement, plus a written account of one regretted decision.

What the behavioural round is actually measuring

Every story you tell gets read for blast radius and judgement: what could have broken, who else it touched, what you knew at the moment you decided. Nobody can audit your code in an hour, so they audit your reasoning instead. Pick work where the call was genuinely yours and the consequences were real enough to remember.

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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?

Resolve a review disagreement over a quota check

Easy · code review · isolation levels · write skew · disagreement

A colleague's pull request enforces a per-tenant quota by selecting the current count and then inserting when it is under the limit. You flag it as a race. They reply that the transaction already runs at repeatable read, so the snapshot makes it safe, and the tests pass. Walk through taking that disagreement to a resolution: what you write in the review, what you demonstrate rather than assert, which fix you propose and why, and what you do if they still disagree after all of it.

Approach

1. Answer the claim precisely instead of restating your objection, because they have made a specific technical argument. In PostgreSQL, repeatable read is snapshot isolation; this is write skew, which snapshot isolation permits by design. Both transactions read a count that is stable within their own snapshot, insert disjoint rows that the other cannot see, and both commit, so the limit is exceeded by exactly the concurrency.
2. Demonstrate rather than cite. Two psql sessions, both BEGIN ISOLATION LEVEL REPEATABLE READ, both select the count, both insert, both commit: it succeeds. Repeat at SERIALIZABLE and the second commit fails with serialization_failure, SQLSTATE 40001. That takes two minutes, ends the argument without anyone conceding a position, and leaves an artefact for the next reviewer.
3. Offer the options with their costs rather than a verdict. Serialisable plus a retry loop on 40001 is correct but obliges every caller to retry and degrades under contention. An increment-and-compare on a counter row — update tenant_quota set used = used + 1 where tenant_id = $1 and used < limit returning used — is safe even at read committed, because a blocked updater re-evaluates the WHERE clause against the row version it finally locks, and zero rows returned means full. A unique or exclusion constraint that makes the surplus write fail is the third.
4. Name the plausible non-fix explicitly, since it is what usually gets merged instead: folding the count into the insert as insert ... select ... where (select count(*) ...) < limit is still racy under read committed, because the subquery cannot see the other transaction's uncommitted rows. It looks atomic and is not.
5. Say what you do if they still disagree: escalate the decision rather than the disagreement. Attach the reproduction, hand it to the service owner or a third reviewer, and state that you will not block the merge if the owner accepts the risk knowingly — and that you want that acceptance written down.
6. Close with the general lesson worth leaving in the review thread: a passing suite is weak evidence for a concurrency claim because it runs one request at a time. Ask for a test that runs two.

Follow-up

• Write the counter-row version. Does your answer change if the quota counts child rows rather than a column?
• Under serialisable, who performs the retry, and what does the API client see if the retry also fails?
• This is the third disagreement with the same reviewer this month. What changes in how you review?

Disclose a cross-tenant webhook delivery to affected customers

Medium · cross-tenant leak · disclosure · blast radius · authorisation checks

An enqueue path took the subscription from one lookup and the payload from another. For nineteen minutes, webhook_delivery rows were created whose tenant_id did not match the subscription's tenant, and eleven payloads were signed and sent to four endpoints belonging to other customers. You hold payload_digest, delivery timestamps and response codes. Describe how you handle a disclosure of this kind: what the records prove, what they cannot prove, what you say before you know everything, the one code change that closes it, and which parts you personally drove.

Approach

1. Bound the population before saying anything externally. The affected set is deliveries in the window where the event's tenant and the subscription's tenant differ; the ones that actually left are those with delivered_at set and a 2xx in last_response_code. Attempted and delivered are two different counts and a disclosure has to use the right one in the right sentence.
2. Separate what the records prove from what they do not, and say both halves rather than the flattering one. They prove which payloads were signed, where they went, and — through payload_digest — exactly which bytes. They do not prove what the receiving system did with them, and they do not bound the window more precisely than your deploy timestamps do.
3. Communicate on the facts you hold, with the scope stated as an upper bound: 'at most eleven payloads, four recipient endpoints, these fields, this window' is more useful and more honest than waiting a day for certainty. The field list matters more than the event count, because a customer cannot assess exposure from 'an event'.
4. Name the code change precisely, because this class never originates in the delivery worker. Compare the event's tenant against the subscription's tenant at enqueue and again immediately before the payload is signed, and make the second comparison drop the delivery rather than log a warning. Say why one check is insufficient: the enqueue check protects against the bug you know about, the pre-signing check protects the boundary itself.
5. Run the history question in parallel and say so: a query over historical deliveries for the same mismatch tells you whether this was nineteen minutes or a year, and you would rather find the second case yourself than have a customer find it after your disclosure.
6. Split the response into workstreams with owners — recipients asked to delete, affected customers notified, the check landed with a test, history swept — and say which you personally drove and which you handed off. Claiming all four is not credible and claiming none is not ownership.

Follow-up

• The historical sweep finds two more instances from last year. What changes in what you have already told people?
• Who approves the wording, and what do you do when you are asked to soften the scope?
• A customer asks you to prove a redelivery contained the same bytes as the original. What do you show them?