Interview guides · Coolbet

Coolbet Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Software engineer prep for Coolbet: design exercises weighted toward the constraints of B2B software and infrastructure work.

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at Coolbet, you are at the core of a high-growth, fast-paced environment dedicated to delivering a premier sports betting and gaming experience. Your work affects how millions of users interact with Coolbet's platform, which requires technical precision, system reliability, and an interest in building scalable, user-centric features.

Prepare in one language you know well enough to debug in rather than the one you think reads best. Under a clock an unfamiliar language costs you standard-library lookups and iteration mechanics, and that time comes out of your thinking budget, not your typing budget.

Focus areas

Scope every query and cache key by tenant
Evolve APIs without breaking pinned SDK clients
Bound blast radius with per-tenant concurrency limits

Overview

In this role you will contribute to the maintenance and evolution of Coolbet's microservices-based architecture. You will be expected to tackle complex problems ranging from database optimization to real-time API integrations. Success in this role requires not just technical proficiency, but the ability to work collaboratively in a team-oriented environment that values clean code, efficient refactoring, and practical solutions over-engineering.

The Coolbet interview process

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

Online Technical Assessment

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

HR Introduction

An unlabelled round is first an information problem, and the cheapest information is free. Whoever schedules it can usually tell you how long it runs, who will be in the room and what they work on, whether you will be writing code and in what environment, and whether anything is being sent beforehand. Ask in writing so the answer is on record, then prepare for the two or three formats those answers still leave open instead of betting on one. What separates a strong candidate is not guessing right; it is having an opening that works whichever one it turns out to be.

What to demonstrate

Whether you can start work from an ambiguous brief, since tolerating a vague scope without stalling is the same thing the job asks for
Whether the questions you asked beforehand were ones that change your preparation, such as duration, medium and who is joining, rather than ones whose answers you could not have acted on
Whether you adapt when the round turns out to be something other than what you were told, instead of spending the first ten minutes visibly recalibrating

How to prepare

Send one short scheduling message asking four things: how long, who is joining and what they work on, whether you will be writing code and where, and whether to prepare anything in advance. Treat a vague reply as real information, since it means the round is loosely structured and you will be shaping it yourself.
Write one opening that works in any of the formats still open: restate in your own words what you have been asked to do, then ask which of two directions is more useful to them. Say it aloud until it stops sounding recited.
Set up for the two most likely formats before the call starts, with a blank editor in the language you would choose and a shared document you can type into, so a format surprise costs you nothing in the first minutes

Technical Deep-Dives

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

Where candidates lose points

Holding money in a floating-point type, or rounding it more than once

Binary floating point cannot represent 0.01 or 0.1 exactly, so sums drift and two code paths that should agree disagree by cents nobody can trace back. The fix is integer minor units or an exact decimal type end to end, with sub-cent rates expressed as scaled integers such as micro-units, because a per-request price genuinely is smaller than a cent. The second half of the trap is rounding position: rounding each line and then summing gives a different total from summing and rounding once, and half-up and half-even diverge systematically across many lines, so rounding must happen at one named place and every downstream reader must carry the rounded value rather than recompute it from quantity and rate.

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.

Trusting input because it came from your own front end

Anything crossing a trust boundary is hostile: parameterise queries instead of building SQL by concatenation, validate against an allow-list rather than a deny-list, and bound the size of anything you allocate from a request. Raising this unprompted in an API or design question is a cheap and unusually strong signal.

Answering a debugging question with a guess instead of a bisection

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

Questions & practice

Explain your approach to refactoring legacy code.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

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

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?

Return the sorted square of an array of numbers.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.

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?

How do you ensure your code is testable and maintainable?

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Locate a billing reconciliation gap without rescanning ninety million events

Hard · reconciliation · dimensional-bisection · watermarks · hypothesis-testing

A tenant's sealed invoice total is 0.4% below the sum of its raw usage_event rows for the period. That tenant has 90 million events over 30 days in a table partitioned daily on ingested_at, and its rollups carry source_max_ingested_at, revision and sealed_at. Recomputing all 30 days from raw is correct, and you are not going to do it. Give the procedure that locates the divergent (workspace, sku, hour) cell, the cost of each probe, and the one query you run before any of it.

Approach

Run the free query first. Sum raw quantity for the period restricted to ingested_at <= source_max_ingested_at of the sealed rollups, and compare that against the unrestricted sum. The rollup stores the watermark precisely so this can be answered without a scan. If the whole 0.4% sits above the watermark, nothing is broken: it is late data, it becomes an adjustment line, and the investigation ends in one query.
Only if the gap survives that test do you bisect, and you bisect by dimension rather than by rows. Compare 30 per-day totals, then inside the offending day compare the 6 SKUs, then the workspaces, then the 24 hours. That is roughly 30 + 6 + W + 24 grouped probes, each an indexed range scan over one daily partition for one tenant, against O(N) per attempt for the naive re-fold.
Quantify why naive is not merely slow but unusable mid-incident: at a generous 200,000 rows/second sequential, 90 million rows is about 7.5 minutes per attempt, you will want ten attempts, and every one competes for I/O on the same partitions live ingest is writing. The diagnostic worsens the backlog it is diagnosing.
Before fetching each comparison, state what it would look like under each hypothesis. Two adjacent hours off by equal and opposite amounts is occurred_at versus ingested_at bucketing. A whole day offset by exactly N hours is a timezone applied at the wrong layer. A gap confined to one SKU in one workspace is an environment filter. The same (tenant_id, idempotency_key) present in two ingested_day partitions is the dedup horizon losing a retry that crossed midnight.
Make the next bisection cheap by storing the aggregate you keep recomputing. A per-(tenant_id, ingested_day) count and quantity checksum turns step two from thirty probes into one read, and it is the same number the reconciliation job already produces.
Whatever you find, the sealed period does not change value. The correction is an adjustment line pointing at the line it reverses, carrying its own source_rollup_watermark, because the original invoice is the evidence of what the customer was charged.

Worked solution (35 min)

Reproduce the shape locally: generate 2 million events for one synthetic tenant over 5 days, fold them, then inject three defects, namely 0.2% of events bucketed by ingested_at, a handful of duplicate idempotency_key values whose retries cross midnight, and a block of events ingested after the seal.
Write the watermark-bounded query first and record how much of the gap it explains on its own.
Bisect by day, then SKU, then hour, recording the probe count and the rows each probe touches.
For each located cell, write down the predicted signature before querying it, then check whether the data matches the prediction.
Time a full re-fold of the 2 million rows and extrapolate to 90 million.

Expected result: The watermark-bounded query accounts for the post-seal block entirely and removes it from the investigation. The ingested_at bucketing appears as adjacent hours off by equal and opposite amounts. The midnight-crossing duplicates appear as one (tenant_id, idempotency_key) present in two ingested_day partitions. Bisection reaches each cell in fewer than 70 probes.

Verify it yourself

The three injected defects sum to the original gap with no unexplained remainder.
Each probe's row count is bounded by one day-partition for one tenant, not by the period.
Removing the source_max_ingested_at bound from the first query makes a gap appear, and grow, while ingest runs, even after every defect is removed.

Follow-up

The gap is 0.4% in one direction on one day and 0.4% the other way the next day. What does that shape rule in, and what does it rule out?
How do you distinguish a duplicate from a restatement, given revision and recomputed_at on the rollup?
Ingest is still running while you investigate. What makes your two numbers comparable at all?

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)

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.
Attempt to insert a line whose tenant_id differs from its invoice's and confirm the foreign key rejects it.
Rename a tenant, re-render a sealed invoice, and confirm the rendered name is the one stored on the header.
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?

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.

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?

Explain the benefits and challenges of a microservices architecture.

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.
Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.

Follow-up

What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?
How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?

How would you design an API to handle high-concurrency requests?

Medium · system design and architecture

Approach

Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.
Name the failure you are designing for, then the recovery path.
Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.

Follow-up

What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?
What would you drop to keep the system up under load?

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?

Invoice detail latency triples after an ORM relationship refactor

Easy · n+1 query · orm · latency regression

An invoice detail endpoint returned in 40 ms at p99 last week. After a refactor replaced a hand-written join with ORM relationship access it returns in 1.4 s, and the regression grows with the number of invoice_line_item rows on the invoice. Database CPU rose, but no statement in the slow-query log exceeds 3 ms. You have request traces with per-span SQL, the ORM statement log, and a staging copy of the data. Produce an ordered diagnostic checklist, the measurement that confirms the cause before any code change, and the fix.

Approach

Count statements per request before reading any statement duration. A slow-query log hides this class by construction, because every individual query is fast and only their number is wrong; take one trace and count SQL spans.
Establish proportionality rather than asserting it: sample invoices with 5, 20, 60 and 200 line items and plot statements per request against line count. A straight line of slope 1 through an intercept of one or two identifies a lazy relationship load, and no index or cache would move that line.
Locate the emitting attribute access in the refactored code and check whether the same shape repeats one level deeper, for instance a tax or adjustment collection hanging off each line, which turns the cost quadratic.
Fix with a bounded statement count: either one join that fetches invoice and lines together, or two statements where the second is WHERE invoice_id = $1 AND tenant_id = $2. Keep tenant_id in the predicate so the read stays tenant-scoped even though invoice_id already implies it.
Choose between the two deliberately: the join duplicates the wide parent row across N children on the wire, the two-statement form avoids that for one extra round trip. Prefer the join for narrow parents and the split for wide ones.
Pin it with a per-request statement-count assertion in a test that varies line count, because a latency assertion passes on a small fixture and would not have caught this.

Follow-up

The endpoint now also needs per-line tax rows. Show the shape that keeps statement count constant instead of reintroducing the same defect one level down.
How does this change if a transaction-pooling proxy sits between the service and the database, so each statement may land on a different backend session?
The same page paginates invoices with LIMIT and OFFSET. Why is that a second, independent defect, and what replaces it?

Suggested practice checklist

Day one measures instead of guessing, under a fixed rubric, and the remaining hours are allocated in proportion to the gaps before any studying begins. The allocation is deliberately not renegotiated midweek, because the area that feels worst on day three is usually the one that is moving.

Day 1 — Diagnostic, scored before you study anything

Sit a 110-minute diagnostic in four blocks: forty-five minutes on two coding problems, twenty-five on one design prompt taken to interface and data model, twenty of short-answer fundamentals, and twenty delivering two behavioural answers aloud.
Score each block from 0 to 3 on a fixed rubric where 3 is correct and fluent, 2 is correct but slow or prompted, 1 is partially correct and 0 is stuck, grading the artifact rather than how the attempt felt.
Allocate days two to five in proportion to 3 minus each block's score, write the allocation down, and commit to leaving it alone.

Deliverable: A scored rubric and a fixed hour allocation for the rest of the week.

Day 2 — Largest gap: find the boundary rather than the subject

Split the weakest area into named sub-skills and rate each separately. For coding those are restating the problem, choosing the structure, stating the invariant, turning the invariant into loop bounds, handling empty and single-element input, and accounting for complexity out loud.
Attempt three items positioned just above where the rating drops off, and for each write the first move you failed to make.
Re-attempt one of them from blank four hours later with nothing open.

Deliverable: A sub-skill map with the two blocking sub-skills circled.

Day 3 — Drill the blocking sub-skill by repeating the shape

Do eight short repetitions of the same shape rather than eight different problems, so what gets practised is the pattern and not the puzzle.
State the rule you now hold in one sentence, then test it against a case built to break it, a sliding window over an array containing negative values, or a cache-aside read path whose invalidation message is dropped.
Have someone else read your one-sentence rule and find the precondition you left out.

Deliverable: One rule statement with its preconditions attached and one counterexample that would have caught the incomplete version.

Day 4 — Second gap, plus maintenance on the strongest area

Run the same sub-skill decomposition on the second-largest gap in half the time.
Spend twenty-five timed minutes on the block you scored highest, choosing the hardest item you can still finish rather than a warm-up.
Write whether each area fails you on recall, on setup, or on execution, and set the fix accordingly: repetition for recall, a written checklist for setup, timed work for execution.

Deliverable: A second sub-skill map plus a one-line failure diagnosis for each area.

Day 5 — The gap that is not a skill

Record one technical and one behavioural answer, then count two things in the playback: seconds before your first clarifying question, and sentences you began without knowing where they would end.
Practise saying that you do not know, followed by how you would find out, without letting it soften into a guess, and practise stating a complexity or an estimate before being asked for it.
Redeliver one answer under a hard ninety-second cap, which forces structure ahead of detail.

Deliverable: Two recordings with a counted reduction in time-to-first-question.

Day 6 — Retest under day-one conditions

Sit the same 110-minute structure with new prompts of comparable difficulty and score it on the identical rubric.
For any block that did not move, change the method rather than adding hours: a block stuck at 1 usually means the practice was too varied, not too short.
Write down which single block you would still lose the offer on.

Deliverable: A second scored rubric placed beside the first, with one named remaining risk.

Day 7 — Full loop under interview conditions

Run a sixty-minute mock over the two blocks that moved least, with an interviewer briefed to interrupt and change direction mid-answer.
Write the recovery script for going blank: restate the question, state your assumption, name the first thing you would check.
Say every rule from the week aloud without reading it, and cut any you cannot state in a single sentence, since a rule you have to reconstruct mid-answer will not survive an interruption.

Deliverable: A one-page card holding the recovery script and only the rules you could state from memory.

'We rewrote it in a better framework' is not a story

A migration is a cost you chose to pay, not an achievement. The story is what the old system made expensive, what you measured before committing, what kept serving traffic during the cutover, and what you would have done if the numbers had come back flat. Without those, a rewrite reads as taste.

How do you handle feedback or disagreements during code reviews?

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

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

Tell me about a time you had to learn a new technology quickly to solve a problem.

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

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

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?