Interview guides · Atlas Tech

Atlas Tech Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

API design practice for Atlas Tech software engineer candidates: compatibility, versioning, and changes you cannot take back.

The 60-second brief

A Software Engineer at Atlas Tech is a key architect of mission-critical systems. Whether you are working on Tactical Networks, Azure Cloud infrastructure, or Software Platform Engineering, your work directly impacts the reliability and performance of complex technical environments. You are not just writing code; you are building the foundation upon which high-stakes operations depend.

The title spans product, platform and infrastructure work, and which of those the seat actually is decides whether design or algorithms carries more weight in your preparation. The posting rarely settles it; what the team is on call for usually does.

Focus areas

Scope every query and cache key by tenant
Build at-least-once pipelines with explicit deduplication horizons
Bound blast radius with per-tenant concurrency limits

Overview

This role is defined by its focus on scale, security, and systems integration. You will collaborate with cross-functional teams to solve challenging problems that require a deep understanding of infrastructure, cloud architecture, and mission-focused engineering. If you are passionate about building robust, scalable solutions that bridge the gap between complex requirements and operational reality, this role offers a challenging and rewarding professional path.

The Atlas Tech interview process

Atlas Tech candidates report 4 rounds · ≈ 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Initial Technical Screening

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

Role-Specific Assessments

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

Technical Deep-Dive

The same problem is scored by two different mechanisms depending on the format, and preparing for one does not cover the other. With a person watching, partial progress is visible and a hint is a correction you can absorb; silence is the expensive failure, because nobody can read a half-written function. With an automated grader there is no partial credit for what you were about to do, nobody to ask, and the worked examples in the prompt are the entire specification. Read them as a contract, down to whether an empty result should be an empty list or no output at all.

What to demonstrate

In a live session, whether your commentary tracks what your hands are doing, and whether a hint redirects you or gets defended against
In an automated one, whether you cover the cases the examples do not show, since the hidden cases are where the score moves
Whether you manage the clock on purpose: abandoning an approach that is not converging while there is still time to write something simpler that finishes

How to prepare

Have someone hand you a problem and feed you one deliberately wrong hint. Practise testing it against a concrete case instead of accepting or rejecting it on authority.
Do one timed run a week in a plain browser editor with autocomplete, linting and your own snippets switched off, which is closer to what these environments give you
For the automated format, write the harness before the solution: a main that feeds the worked examples plus an empty and a single-element case and prints expected against actual, so a wrong submission is caught by you first

Final Decision

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

Checking a quota with a select and then writing

Under read-committed isolation, two concurrent transactions both observe a count below the limit and both insert, so the limit is exceeded by exactly the concurrency. Repeatable read does not rescue it either: it provides a stable snapshot, and this is write skew, which snapshot isolation permits by design. The options are serialisable isolation, which detects the conflict and aborts one transaction with a serialisation failure and therefore obliges the caller to retry; a single statement with the predicate inside the write; or a constraint that makes the surplus insert fail outright. The reason this pattern survives review is that it is correct in every test that runs one request at a time.

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.

Comparing floating-point values for equality, or holding money in them

Binary floating point cannot represent 0.1 exactly, so repeated addition drifts and an equality check fails on values that are mathematically equal. Store currency as integer minor units or a decimal type, and compare floats against a tolerance you chose for a stated reason.

Tests that assert on the implementation rather than the behaviour

Assert on what a caller can observe, not on the number of internal calls or the shape of a private field. A test that breaks on every refactor but still passes when the answer is wrong costs more than it protects.

Questions & practice

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?

Schedule ordered webhook retries with a heap of subscription queues

Medium · heap · scheduling · backoff · head-of-line-blocking

Design the in-memory scheduler for webhook delivery. Up to 20 million rows sit in status pending or failed_retryable across 200,000 subscriptions, each row carrying next_attempt_at and attempt_count, and each endpoint having a circuit breaker. Deliveries for one subscription must be attempted in order, so at most one attempt per subscription may be in flight. Support due(now), complete(delivery, outcome) and insert(delivery) in O(log S), where S is the subscription count rather than the delivery count. Give the backoff formula you schedule retries with.

Approach

Key the global heap by subscription, not by delivery. Each subscription owns a FIFO of its due deliveries in event order; the heap holds one entry per eligible subscription, keyed by its head's next_attempt_at. That is 200,000 heap entries instead of 20 million, and it makes the one-in-flight rule structural rather than a check somebody can forget.
due(now): peek the minimum. If its key is in the future, sleep until then instead of spinning. Otherwise pop it, move the subscription into an in-flight set, and do not re-push it. A subscription absent from the heap cannot be dispatched twice, which is precisely how ordering is preserved.
complete: on success, drop the head and re-push the subscription keyed by its new head, or leave it out when the queue empties. On a retryable failure, increment attempt_count and set next_attempt_at = now + uniform(0, min(cap, base * 2^attempt)), sampled uniformly across the whole interval. That is full jitter; deterministic backoff re-synchronises the herd you just created.
Circuit breaker: park the subscription in a second heap keyed by its half-open time, so an endpoint dead for six hours costs one heap entry and zero attempts rather than consuming worker slots. Admit exactly one probe at half-open and close the breaker only on its success.
Say the price of the ordering guarantee out loud. One in-flight attempt per subscription means an endpoint answering in 10 seconds drains at 0.1 deliveries/second however many workers you run, and its backlog grows until it recovers. If the customer does not need order, allow k in flight and document delivery as unordered; that is the trade, and it is a product decision.
All three operations are O(log S) with O(S) resident heap memory and the queues themselves backed by the store. The database-backed equivalent is a partial index on (subscription_id, next_attempt_at) where status in ('pending','failed_retryable') claimed with FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED, and the write-back must be fenced on lease_token so a worker that stalled and resumed cannot overwrite a newer attempt.

Follow-up

One subscription has 4 million queued deliveries. What stops it from starving the other 199,999, and what does your heap look like under that load?
A customer requests redelivery of last Tuesday's events. Where do those rows enter your structure, and what keeps them from reordering live traffic?
The process restarts. How much state do you rebuild, and what stops every subscription from being attempted in the same second?

Seal an hour under late data with bounded memory

Hard · watermarks · late-data · quantile-sketch · conditional-write

Metering ingest reads 256 partitions at 10,000 to 40,000 events/second. Events carry occurred_at and ingested_at, and during a producer replay the gap between them is hours. Seal each UTC hour once no more than 50 parts per million of that hour's eventual quantity can still arrive, using memory that does not grow with the size of the replay. Define the watermark, the lateness parameter and how you measure it, the structure holding open hours, and the write that performs the seal. State what an idle partition does to your watermark.

Approach

Two clocks, two jobs. Bucket by occurred_at, because that is the hour the customer is billed for, and advance the watermark on ingested_at, because that is what the fold has consumed and what source_max_ingested_at records. Conflating them is what makes late data invisible.
The global watermark is the min over partitions of each partition's committed ingested_at, not the max: the fold is trustworthy only as far as the slowest partition. The consequence is that one idle partition pins the watermark forever and nothing seals, so an idle partition must promote its watermark to wall clock after a stated idle timeout, and that timeout becomes a correctness parameter, because a partition that is slow rather than idle gets sealed past.
Choose the lateness L from the measured distribution of ingested_at - occurred_at, weighted by quantity rather than by event count. The target is 50 ppm of the hour's quantity, and a replay is rare in events while carrying disproportionate mass, so an event-weighted quantile picks an L that is comfortably wrong at exactly the moment it matters.
Measure that quantile in bounded memory. A Greenwald-Khanna summary gives epsilon-approximate quantiles in O((1/epsilon) log(epsilon n)) space; a t-digest costs more per merge but has relative error that tightens at the tails, which is the half of the distribution you are reading at p99.99. Keep a separate summary per tenant class, because one tenant's batch importer is not the population.
Hold open hours in a min-heap keyed by hour_start. When the watermark advances, pop every hour with hour_end + L < W and seal it: O(log H_open) per advance and O(1) amortised per event to touch its bucket. Memory is open hours multiplied by distinct (tenant, workspace, sku) keys, so cap the number of simultaneously open hours and spill the oldest into usage_rollup_hourly as status='open' with a revision bump. While an hour is open the row is upsertable, so the store is your overflow.
The seal itself is a conditional write: update ... set status='sealed', sealed_at=now() where status='open' returning .... Two sealers race on every restart, and the loser must see zero rows and stop rather than write a second value. After the seal, an event for that hour is not an upsert but an adjustment, and source_max_ingested_at is what proves it arrived afterwards.

Follow-up

A replay starts during the sealing window for a period you are about to close. What do you do, and what is the customer-visible consequence of each option?
Your measured quantity-weighted p99.99 lateness is six hours and the invoice must be issued at 02:00 UTC on the first. How do you reconcile those two numbers?
How would you detect that L has drifted before it costs you an hour's quantity?

Rebuild an hourly rollup with deduplication and late-arrival accounting

Hard · window functions · deduplication · event time vs ingest time · watermarks

From usage_event (event_id, tenant_id, workspace_id, environment, sku, quantity numeric(20,6), idempotency_key, occurred_at, ingested_at), produce the values usage_rollup_hourly should hold for one tenant over one day: per (workspace_id, sku, hour_start) the deduplicated quantity_sum, event_count and source_max_ingested_at, bucketed by occurred_at. Duplicates share (tenant_id, idempotency_key). Also report, per hour, the running total across the day and the share of quantity that arrived more than two hours after the hour began. Write the query, and state which duplicates a daily unique index cannot catch.

Approach

Deduplicate in its own CTE before any aggregation, because a SUM cannot be un-summed: row_number() over (partition by tenant_id, idempotency_key order by ingested_at, event_id) = 1. Include the tiebreaker. Without it the surviving row is non-deterministic when two duplicates share an ingested_at, and a rollup described as deterministically recomputable then disagrees with itself between runs.
Bucket on occurred_at and nothing else, and pin the timezone explicitly. date_trunc('hour', timestamptz) truncates in the session's TimeZone setting, so the same query run by a session set to a non-UTC zone buckets differently; use the three-argument date_trunc('hour', occurred_at, 'UTC') on PostgreSQL 16 or later, or date_trunc('hour', occurred_at at time zone 'UTC') at time zone 'UTC' before that. Filter environment = 'production' explicitly, since metering covers three environments and billing covers one.
Aggregate to the grain with sum(quantity), count(*) and max(ingested_at). The last is not decoration: it is the watermark the row consumed up to, and without it there is no way to prove afterwards what a number did and did not include.
Compute the late share inside the dedup-and-aggregate step as a conditional aggregate, sum(quantity) filter (where ingested_at > hour_start + interval '2 hours'), then divide by the hour's total. Compute the running total as a window over the already aggregated rows: sum(quantity_sum) over (partition by workspace_id, sku order by hour_start rows between unbounded preceding and current row). Running either over raw rows puts the duplicates back.
Answer the index question exactly. The unique constraint is on (ingested_day, tenant_id, idempotency_key), because a unique index on a partitioned table must contain the partition key. It therefore deduplicates only within one ingest day and admits a duplicate whose retry crosses midnight or whose replay runs a week later. That is why this CTE dedups across the whole window being recomputed, and why the dedup horizon is a correctness parameter rather than a retention cost.
Keep the numeric type all the way through. quantity is numeric so the sums are exact; a cast to double precision anywhere in this pipeline reintroduces drift that surfaces only as a few unreconcilable cents per tenant per month, long after the query is out of anyone's mind.

Worked solution (40 min)

Generate a day of events for one tenant across three workspaces and two SKUs, inject 2% duplicates sharing an idempotency_key with a later ingested_at, and inject 1% whose ingested_at is six hours past occurred_at.
Write the dedup CTE alone and confirm its row count drops by exactly the injected duplicate count.
Aggregate and compare quantity_sum against a ground truth computed outside SQL from the generator's own records.
Add the two window and filtered aggregates, and confirm the final hour's running total equals the ungrouped day total for each (workspace, sku).
Run the whole query twice over static data and diff the two outputs.
Re-run with the session TimeZone set to a non-UTC zone and confirm hour_start does not move.

Expected result: One query: a dedup CTE using row_number() over (partition by tenant_id, idempotency_key order by ingested_at, event_id); aggregation by (workspace_id, sku, hour_start) producing quantity_sum, event_count and max(ingested_at) plus a filtered late-quantity aggregate; a running total as a window over the aggregated rows; and an explicit statement that the partition-scoped daily unique index cannot catch a duplicate that crosses the ingest-day boundary or arrives in a later replay.

Verify it yourself

Row count after dedup equals raw count minus injected duplicates, exactly.
The running total at the final hour equals the ungrouped day total for that (workspace, sku).
Two consecutive runs over static data return byte-identical rows.
Every hour_start is hour-aligned in UTC and unchanged by the session's TimeZone setting.

Follow-up

A dispute forces the same recompute over 40 days for one tenant. What changes about the dedup CTE's memory use and the chosen plan, and what would you do about it?
Two runs a minute apart return different quantity_sum values for an hour that is already closed. Give two mechanisms that produce that, and the single query that distinguishes them.
Express the same rollup incrementally so it does not re-scan the day each time the watermark advances. What does the incremental version stop being able to answer?

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?

How do you approach securing cloud-native applications against external threats?

Medium · system design and architecture

Approach

Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.
Name the failure you are designing for, then the recovery path.

Follow-up

What would you drop to keep the system up under load?
How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?

How do you manage dependencies in a complex, multi-layered system?

Medium · api and integration design

Approach

Separate accepted, pending, failed and confirmed; they are different facts.
Say who the caller is and what they do when the call fails halfway.
Define the identity of a request so a retry cannot double-apply it.

Follow-up

How does a client discover it is on an old version of this contract?
What happens if the caller retries after a timeout?

What is your approach to documentation when working on long-term, high-impact projects?

Medium · api and integration design

Approach

Design the error taxonomy before the success shape; callers branch on it.
Separate accepted, pending, failed and confirmed; they are different facts.
Say who the caller is and what they do when the call fails halfway.

Follow-up

How does a client discover it is on an old version of this contract?
What does a partial failure look like to the caller?

How do you ensure high availability and disaster recovery in your system designs?

Medium · api and integration design

Approach

Separate accepted, pending, failed and confirmed; they are different facts.
Define the identity of a request so a retry cannot double-apply it.
Design the error taxonomy before the success shape; callers branch on it.

Follow-up

What happens if the caller retries after a timeout?
How does a client discover it is on an old version of this contract?

Make run creation safe when the client times out and retries

Medium · idempotency · retries · outbox

POST /v1/runs inserts a job_run row and dispatches a sandbox. The caller is a customer's CI pipeline with a 10-second timeout and three automatic retries. A run that takes 12 seconds to start returns after the client has already given up, so the retry starts a second sandbox and bills it. Redesign the endpoint: the key the client sends, its scope and storage, what happens when the same key arrives with a different body, what happens when a retry arrives while the first request is still in flight, and how long the key stays honoured.

Approach

Name the defect before designing: the client's timeout is an unknown outcome, and the naive shape gives it no way to ask whether the earlier call landed, so its only choices are to duplicate the run or to drop it.
Require an Idempotency-Key header scoped to (tenant_id, key) rather than to the credential, so a rotated or replaced credential still replays. Store the key with a request fingerprint, SHA-256 over method, path and the canonicalised body, plus state, the stored response status and body, and the resulting run_id.
Make the claim a write rather than a read: insert the key row inside the same transaction as the run under unique (tenant_id, idempotency_key). The loser of a concurrent race takes a unique violation and then reads the winner's row, which is what makes the duplicate case deterministic instead of timing-dependent.
Define three outcomes precisely. Same key, same fingerprint, completed: replay the stored response with a header marking it a replay. Same key, different fingerprint: 422 with an idempotency_key_reuse code, never the stored response. Same key still in flight: 409 with Retry-After, because blocking the second caller holds a connection for the duration of someone else's request.
Close the dispatch gap with an outbox row committed alongside the run and a relay that enqueues it. Commit-then-publish loses the dispatch if the process dies in between; publish-then-commit hands a worker a run_id that does not exist yet.
Set retention from the client, not from storage cost: the key must outlive the caller's worst-case total retry window, so publish a number such as 24 hours and state that a key reused after expiry legitimately creates a second run.

Worked solution (30 min)

Draw the timeline of the failing case: commit at t=11s, client abandons at t=10s, retry at t=10.1s, and mark where the second sandbox starts.
Write the idempotency table DDL with the unique constraint and the fingerprint column, then the single transaction that inserts both rows.
Enumerate the four arrival cases (first, replay, conflicting body, in-flight) and write the exact status, headers and body for each.
Add the outbox row to the same transaction and describe the relay's at-least-once behaviour and why the worker must tolerate a duplicate dispatch.
State the retention horizon and the sentence that goes in the public docs about key reuse after expiry.

Expected result: One transaction inserting job_run plus an idempotency row under unique (tenant_id, idempotency_key) and an outbox row; replay returns the stored response, a conflicting fingerprint returns 422, an in-flight duplicate returns 409 with Retry-After, and the horizon is published as a number.

Verify it yourself

The concurrent-duplicate case is resolved by a constraint violation, not by a prior SELECT.
No path returns the stored response for a different request body.
There is no window where the run is committed but the dispatch is not, or the reverse.
The key scope contains the tenant, and nothing in it is derived from the credential.

Follow-up

The SDK generates a fresh key on every attempt rather than reusing one. What in your response surface makes that visible instead of silently doubling the bill?
How does this interact with job_run.parent_run_id: is an automatic retry of a failed run the same object as a client retry of the request?

Hourly rollups merge one hour and lose another

Easy · timezone · rollups · reconciliation

Reconciliation flags one tenant on one day. Summing usage_event.quantity by hour of occurred_at gives 24 non-empty hours, but usage_rollup_hourly holds 23 rows for that tenant, workspace and SKU, one of which carries roughly the sum of two adjacent hours. Other days reconcile exactly, and the affected date matches a civil-time transition. hour_start is documented as truncated to the hour in UTC. You have both tables, the rollup job source, and its runtime environment. Give an ordered checklist, the mechanism, and the correction path for a day that may already be sealed.

Approach

Bisect by dimension until one cell explains the whole difference: tenant, then day, then SKU, then hour. A defect confined to a single transition date already rules out deduplication and late arrival, both of which are indifferent to which hour an event lands in.
Read the truncation with its precondition stated: date_trunc on a timestamptz value is evaluated in the session TimeZone, not in UTC. If the job connects without pinning that setting, it inherits the server or container default.
Follow that to the collision: in a zone that observes daylight saving, two distinct UTC hours map to the same local wall-clock label at the autumn transition, so both fold into one key under the unique constraint on (tenant_id, workspace_id, sku, hour_start) and their quantities sum into one row. At the spring transition a label never occurs and the row is simply absent.
Confirm from data rather than from reading code: run the same aggregate twice, once with the session pinned to UTC and once with the job host zone, and check that the second reproduces the stored rollup exactly.
Fix at the source by pinning the connection to UTC explicitly, or by truncating on occurred_at AT TIME ZONE 'UTC', rather than relying on a default that differs between a developer machine, CI and production.
Correct according to status, not convenience: an open hour is recomputed with revision incremented, a sealed hour is frozen and the difference becomes an adjustment line on the next invoice with voided_by_line_id pointing at the line it reverses.

Follow-up

The same job also emits a daily figure for a dashboard. Why can a correct hourly rollup still produce a wrong day, and what does the tenant's billing timezone have to do with it?
How would you detect this class automatically rather than waiting for reconciliation, given that it only manifests twice a year per zone?

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.

Risky changes and the reversal path

For anything that touched live traffic, be ready to say how you would have undone it: a flag, a staged rollout, dual writes with the old path still authoritative. Once the old column is dropped or the source rows are overwritten there is no reverse, so name what you kept a copy of and for how long.

How do you handle hardware-software interface challenges?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that again?
How did you know your change caused the improvement?

How do you communicate complex technical risks to non-technical stakeholders?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that again?
How did you know your change caused the improvement?

Estimate a tenant-leading index migration you have never run

Hard · estimation · online migration · index builds · uncertainty

Someone needs a date. usage_event carries an index on (occurred_at) and needs (tenant_id, occurred_at); the largest tenant holds roughly a hundred times the median tenant's rows, the table is partitioned daily with years of retention, and you have never run a migration on a table this large. Give an estimate you would defend: how you decompose the work, the two or three numbers you would go and measure first, the range and confidence you state, and what you commit to when the person asking needs a single date today.

Approach

Refuse the bare number and then give one anyway, in the form that is actually useful: a range plus the measurement that collapses it. 'Four to eleven days; one afternoon building this index on a restored copy of the largest partition takes that to within a day' is an answer, while 'it depends' is not.
Decompose by failure mode rather than into equal chunks, because that is where estimates go wrong. On a partitioned parent you create the index ON ONLY the parent, build each partition's index with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY, then ALTER INDEX ... ATTACH PARTITION, at which point the parent index becomes valid. CONCURRENTLY does not block writes but scans each partition twice, waits out older transactions, cannot run inside a transaction block, and on failure leaves an invalid index you must drop concurrently and retry.
Name the two unknowns that dominate and price them: build time on one restored partition of realistic size, and whether the planner actually chooses the new index for the skewed tenant, since selectivity for a tenant holding most of the rows is a different question from selectivity for the median tenant. Both are half-day measurements against a replica, and both are cheaper than being wrong by a week.
State the assumptions the range is conditional on, because that is what makes a slip a re-estimate instead of a credibility event: no partition above a stated row count, one concurrent build at a time so it does not compete with ingest for I/O, and an ingest backlog that can absorb the added write amplification while both indexes exist.
Budget the step nobody budgets: verification and the old index's removal. Dropping the old index is fast, but deciding it is safe to drop means confirming no plan still uses it, and that confirmation waits on real traffic across a full weekly cycle rather than on your patience.
Answer the single-date request honestly. Commit to a date for the first checkpoint — the measured build number from the replica — and to re-estimating on that date, and say plainly what you are not committing to yet. A date with a scheduled re-estimate is worth more to the asker than a confident wrong one, and you should say why in those words.

Follow-up

The concurrent build fails half way through the largest partition. What is the state of the database and what do you do next?
Your estimate slips by sixty percent. Which assumption broke, and at what point would you have known?
The person asking needs the date for a customer commitment. Does your answer change?