cswork / libraryOpen practice workspace

Interview guides · Electric Square

Electric Square Software Engineer Interview Guide

Electric Square Software Engineer interview guide: reported rounds, questions and how candidates describe the process.

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at Electric Square, you are at the heart of our mission to build high-quality, engaging interactive experiences. We pride ourselves on a culture that balances professional rigor with a creative, collaborative environment. You will be responsible for designing, implementing, and maintaining robust codebases that power our diverse portfolio of projects. Your impact extends beyond writing lines of code; you will be instrumental in shaping the technical architecture and user experience of our titles. Whether you are optimizing engine performance or implementing complex gameplay features, your work directly influences the technical standard of our studio. We look for engineers who are not only technically proficient but also deeply invested in the craft of game development.

This guide is scoped to a Software Engineer candidate at Electric Square.

Focus areas

  • Coding Interviews (Timed Programming Test)
  • Problem Solving Under Time Constraints
  • Implementation Skills (Writing Working Code)

The Electric Square interview process

Electric Square candidates report 2 rounds over 2-4 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Initial Screening

Gauge your interest and background through an initial contact.

What to demonstrate

  • Gauge your interest and background through an initial contact
  • Depth in Coding Interviews (Timed Programming Test)

How to prepare

  • Be able to walk your CV end to end in two minutes, and say why this company specifically.
  • Have your salary expectations, notice period and location constraints ready, and ask for the rest of the loop in writing.

Technical Assessment

Involves practical coding exercises and discussions about past projects.

What to demonstrate

  • Involves practical coding exercises and discussions about past projects
  • Depth in Coding Interviews (Timed Programming Test)

How to prepare

  • Answer aloud and timed: How do you handle technical debt when working under tight project deadlines?
  • Answer aloud and timed: What is your approach to debugging complex, intermittent issues in a large codebase?

Where candidates lose points

Show your work

When discussing past projects, be prepared to talk about the specific challenges you faced and how you overcame them.

Ask questions

Use the interview as an opportunity to learn about our current tech stack and the specific challenges the team is facing.

Be yourself

We value authenticity. We want to understand how you think and how you work within a team.

Research our portfolio

Having a solid understanding of the games we have developed will demonstrate your genuine interest in our studio.

Questions & practice

You will be asked to complete a timed programming test; how do you manage your time and prioritize features?

Medium · Problem Solving and Logic

Approach

  1. Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
  2. Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
  3. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
  4. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.

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?

Given a specific constraint, how do you modify your algorithm to maintain efficiency?

Medium · Problem Solving and Logic

Approach

  1. Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
  2. Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
  3. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
  4. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.

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?

Canonicalise a request body into a stable idempotency fingerprint

Medium · parsing · canonicalisation · hashing

idempotency_key.request_fingerprint is a SHA-256 over the method, path and canonicalised body, and a retry whose fingerprint differs must be rejected with 422 rather than served the stored response. Write the canonicaliser. Bodies are JSON up to 256 KB nested at most 32 levels; clients vary key order, whitespace and unicode escaping, and some send 64-bit ids as JSON numbers. Produce a deterministic byte string such that semantically identical bodies match and any semantic difference does not. State your complexity and name two normalisations you refuse to perform.

Approach

  1. Parse once into a tree, then re-serialise under fixed rules: object keys sorted, array order preserved, one escaping convention, no insignificant whitespace. Parsing is O(n) and sorting keys is O(k log k) per object, so O(n log n) overall with O(depth) stack, and the 32-level cap is enforced during parsing because hostile nesting is how a canonicaliser becomes a stack overflow.
  2. Sort keys by their UTF-8 bytes and say why the obvious implementation is wrong in some runtimes: a default string comparison that orders by UTF-16 code units places surrogate pairs, meaning code points from U+10000 up, below U+E000 to U+FFFF, which is not UTF-8 byte order, so two services written in different languages disagree on the same document.
  3. Do not re-encode numbers through a double. IEEE-754 binary64 represents integers exactly only up to 2^53, so normalising a 19-digit id through a float changes it, and 1 against 1.0 cannot be reconciled without deciding whether they are the same value. Preserve the literal token, and require ids as strings at the API boundary if you want them comparable.
  4. Reject duplicate keys rather than picking one. JSON permits them and parsers disagree, most keeping the last, so any choice you make ties the fingerprint to a parser detail that the code handling the request does not necessarily share.

Follow-up

  • A client sends the same logical request with an extra field your API ignores. Same key, different fingerprint, so you return 422. Is that the right answer?
  • Where does the fingerprint get computed relative to request decompression and the body-size limit?

Hold a per-tenant active cap against concurrent creates

Hard · write skew · isolation levels · constraints

A tenant on the standard plan may hold at most 50 resources with status='active'. The create handler runs SELECT count(*) FROM resource WHERE tenant_id = $1 AND status = 'active', compares to 50, then inserts. Two creates arrive 3 ms apart on different instances and the tenant lands at 51. Name the anomaly, say whether PostgreSQL 16 READ COMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ prevents it and why, then give an implementation that holds the cap at READ COMMITTED with the exact statements. Finally, say what changes when the cap is 'at most one running export per tenant' on job_run.

Approach

  1. Name it: write skew. The two transactions read an overlapping set and write disjoint rows, so there is no row-level conflict for the engine to detect and each commit is individually legal.
  2. Rule out the levels precisely. READ COMMITTED takes a fresh snapshot per statement and takes no lock on the counted rows, so both see 49. PostgreSQL's REPEATABLE READ is snapshot isolation: it removes non-repeatable reads and phantoms within the snapshot but still admits write skew, because the anomaly is not a re-read of a changed row, it is a read of a set that a concurrent transaction invalidates. Only SERIALIZABLE closes it, by tracking the read dependency and aborting one transaction with SQLSTATE 40001 — a guarantee that exists only if the application re-runs the whole transaction from the read.
  3. Convert the set predicate into a single-row conflict: keep tenant.active_resource_count and run UPDATE tenant SET active_resource_count = active_resource_count + 1 WHERE tenant_id = $1 AND active_resource_count < 50 in the same transaction as the INSERT. Zero affected rows is the cap, returned as 409. The row lock serialises the decision at any isolation level, and contention is bounded to one tenant's row — which is also the fair-scheduling unit, unlike a global counter that would convoy every tenant behind one row.
  4. State the cost you just took on: a counter is a second source of truth that can drift, so every path that changes status must adjust it inside the same transaction, and a periodic reconciliation has to exist, with resource_revision as the authority for what the count should have been.

Follow-up

  • A resource moves from archived back to active. Which statements change, and what breaks if the counter update and the status change land in different transactions?
  • The cap becomes plan-dependent and a plan can change mid-month. Where does the number 50 live, and who reads it?

Replace offset paging on the resource feed with keyset

Easy · keyset pagination · composite index · sort order

resource holds resource_id, tenant_id, owner_user_id, title, body_ref, version, status ('draft','active','archived','deleted'), created_at, updated_at, deleted_at, with an index on (tenant_id, status, updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC). The listing endpoint returns active resources for one tenant, newest update first, 50 per page, today with LIMIT 50 OFFSET n. Tenants reach page 400 and rows are created while they read. Write the keyset query, define what the cursor carries and how it is encoded, and say which part of the index each predicate uses. Assume PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

  1. Name the two failures separately. OFFSET 20000 makes the server produce and discard 20,000 rows, so page cost grows with depth rather than with page size. Independently, any write that changes how many rows sort above the offset moves the window between two fetches, and the direction decides which anomaly you get: an insert lands at the head of updated_at DESC and pushes already-returned rows down past the boundary, so they are returned a second time; a delete above the offset, or a row whose updated_at is bumped above the cursor, pulls rows up and one is never returned at all. Nothing in the response reveals either.
  2. Write the seek: WHERE tenant_id = $1 AND status = 'active' AND (updated_at, resource_id) < ($2, $3) ORDER BY updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC LIMIT 50. The row-value comparison is one index range rather than a disjunction, and both columns are NOT NULL, which is what makes that comparison well defined.
  3. Map each predicate onto the index: tenant_id and status are equality on the leading columns, (updated_at, resource_id) is the range, and the ORDER BY matches the index order so no Sort node appears and the scan stops after 50 rows. The DESC in the definition only matters for mixed directions — a plain ascending btree on the same columns is read backwards for this query.
  4. Put both sort columns in the cursor and nothing the client can tamper with into another tenant: base64 of (updated_at, resource_id), validated server-side, with tenant_id taken from the principal.

Follow-up

  • The client asks for 'jump to page 400'. What do you offer instead, and what does the honest version cost?
  • Sort order becomes user-selectable across four columns. How many indexes is that, and which would you refuse to add?

How do you define "code quality," and how do you enforce it in a team environment?

Medium · Technical Fundamentals and Code Quality

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Can you walk us through a piece of code you are particularly proud of and explain your design choices?

Medium · Technical Fundamentals and Code Quality

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How would you design a system to handle [specific game mechanic/feature]?

Medium · Problem Solving and Logic

Approach

  1. Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.
  2. Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
  3. Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
  4. State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.

Follow-up

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

What is your approach to debugging complex, intermittent issues in a large codebase?

Medium · Technical Fundamentals and Code Quality

Approach

  1. Establish what changed and when, before forming any theory.
  2. Pick a bisection that eliminates candidates whichever way it turns out.
  3. Check the instrumentation before believing the symptom.
  4. Separate the trigger from the cause; the deploy is rarely the bug.

Follow-up

  • What would you look at first, and what would it rule out?
  • How would you tell a cause from a coincidence here?

Suggested practice checklist

Built from the rounds and topics Electric Square candidates report.

Day 1 — Map the Electric Square loop

  • Write out the reported sequence: Initial Screening, Technical Assessment.
  • For each round, write one sentence on what it is judging, from the description above, and mark the one you are least ready for.

Deliverable: A one-page map of the 2 reported rounds, with the weakest marked.

Day 2 — Work Coding Interviews (Timed Programming Test)

  • Spend the session on Coding Interviews (Timed Programming Test), which Electric Square candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in Coding Interviews (Timed Programming Test) and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Coding Interviews (Timed Programming Test).

Day 3 — Work Problem Solving Under Time Constraints

  • Spend the session on Problem Solving Under Time Constraints, which Electric Square candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in Problem Solving Under Time Constraints and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Problem Solving Under Time Constraints.

Day 4 — Work Implementation Skills (Writing Working Code)

  • Spend the session on Implementation Skills (Writing Working Code), which Electric Square candidates report being tested on.
  • Write one worked example in Implementation Skills (Writing Working Code) and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Implementation Skills (Writing Working Code).

Day 5 — Answer out loud: Technical Fundamentals and Code Quality

  • Answer aloud, timed: How do you define "code quality," and how do you enforce it in a team environment?
  • Answer aloud, timed: Can you walk us through a piece of code you are particularly proud of and explain your design choices?

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Technical Fundamentals and Code Quality question(s), under time.

Day 6 — Answer out loud: Problem Solving and Logic

  • Answer aloud, timed: Describe a time you had to optimize an existing system for better performance.
  • Answer aloud, timed: How would you design a system to handle [specific game mechanic/feature]?

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Problem Solving and Logic question(s), under time.

Day 7 — Answer out loud: Behavioral and Culture Fit

  • Answer aloud, timed: Why do you want to work at Electric Square specifically compared to other studios?
  • Answer aloud, timed: Tell us about a time you had to resolve a technical disagreement with a colleague.

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Behavioral and Culture Fit question(s), under time.

Behavioural preparation

Behavioural rounds judge the decision you made and what it cost.

How do you handle technical debt when working under tight project deadlines?

Medium · Technical Fundamentals and Code Quality

Approach

  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
  4. 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?

Describe a time you had to optimize an existing system for better performance.

Medium · Problem Solving and Logic

Approach

  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
  4. 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?

Why do you want to work at Electric Square specifically compared to other studios?

Medium · Behavioral and Culture Fit

Approach

  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
  4. 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?

Tell us about a time you had to resolve a technical disagreement with a colleague.

Medium · Behavioral and Culture Fit

Approach

  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
  4. 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?

How do you balance the need for creative freedom with the requirements of a production schedule?

Medium · Behavioral and Culture Fit

Approach

  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
  4. 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?