Interview guides · Figma

Figma Machine Learning Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Figma Machine Learning Engineer interview guide: reported rounds, practice questions with worked solutions and a 7-day prep plan.

The 60-second brief

As a Machine Learning Engineer at Figma, you sit at the intersection of creative expression and computational intelligence. Your work directly impacts how millions of designers and developers build the world’s interfaces. You aren't just optimizing models; you are building the infrastructure that powers features like intelligent asset recommendations, generative design tools, and the complex systems that keep the Figma canvas performant and intuitive.

Treat capacity estimation as a conversion skill rather than a table to memorise: turn a user count and an action rate into requests per second and bytes per day, then name the component that number breaks first. The figure only matters if it changes the design.

Focus areas

Paginate large result sets with keyset cursors
Bound every outbound call with a timeout
Choose indexes from the query's access path

Overview

This role requires a unique blend of high-level system design and granular model implementation. You will contribute to projects that range from vision-language models for prompt-to-design capabilities to recommendation engines that surface the right templates at the right time. The challenges here are rooted in scale, real-time performance, and the nuanced requirement of maintaining the "magic" of the Figma user experience.

Success in this role requires more than just technical proficiency; it requires an obsession with user-centric outcomes. You will work closely with product managers and designers to translate ambiguous design needs into robust machine learning solutions. If you enjoy solving complex problems that bridge the gap between natural language, computer vision, and interactive software, you will find this role both demanding and deeply rewarding.

Where to focus your preparation

Treat the sections below as preparation areas and confirm the format with your recruiter.

Preparation focus

No round sequence has been reported for this company, so work the categories below and confirm the format with your recruiter.

What to demonstrate

Breadth across SQL, experimentation and product reasoning
Ability to state assumptions before choosing a method

How to prepare

Drill the practice exercises below and time yourself
Prepare three quantified stories about decisions you drove

Where candidates lose points

Letting a slow dependency consume unbounded concurrency

The failure that takes a service down is usually not an error but a delay. A dependency answering in thirty seconds instead of fifty milliseconds holds each request's worker or connection six hundred times longer, and since required concurrency is arrival rate times latency, a fleet sized for sixty in-flight requests now needs thirty-six thousand to sustain the same rate - so it queues, and requests whose clients have already abandoned them still occupy resources. Retries make it precisely worse: a policy of three attempts triples the load on a dependency at the exact moment it is least able to serve, which is how one slow dependency becomes an outage of everything sharing that pool. Containment is four specific things - a timeout on every outbound call shorter than the caller's remaining budget, a bounded pool per dependency so one cannot starve the others, backoff with full jitter rather than a fixed delay so retries do not resynchronise, and a circuit that stops sending once the failure rate makes an attempt pointless.

Choosing an index from the columns a query mentions rather than from how it filters and orders

A composite B-tree index on (a, b, c) can be seeked only as a left prefix: equality on a, then equality on b, then a range or an ordering on c. A query that filters on b alone cannot seek into it at all and at best gets a full scan of the index; a query that filters a and ranges on b gets no benefit from c, because the index is only sorted by c within a fixed (a, b) pair. The practical consequence is that one index per column is close to useless for multi-predicate queries while a single correctly ordered composite index turns a scan into a lookup. The ordering half is what gets missed: if the index cannot satisfy the ORDER BY, the database must read every matching row and sort before the limit can apply, so a LIMIT 20 over a million matching rows still reads a million rows.

Listing technologies instead of trade-offs

Name the property the design needs first, such as ordered range scans, multi-entity transactions, cheap appends, or a predictable p99, then pick something that provides it and say what it gives up in exchange. Almost any component is defensible once you state the requirement it satisfies and the one it sacrifices.

Naming no test cases at all

State what you would test before being asked: empty input, a single element, all elements equal, the maximum permitted size, and the input that exercises the branch you just wrote. It costs thirty seconds and is much of what separates someone who has shipped code from someone who has only solved puzzles.

Questions & practice

Define model initialization, forward passes, and custom loss functions for NLP tasks.

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.
Pick the metric from the cost of each error type, not from habit.
Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.

Follow-up

Where could label leakage enter this setup?
How would you know the model is overfitting?

How would you improve the training process for a given model architecture?

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.
State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.
Pick the metric from the cost of each error type, not from habit.

Follow-up

Where could label leakage enter this setup?
How would you know the model is overfitting?

Extract the most critical part of an IMDb movie review, outputting the start and end indices.

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.
Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.
Pick the metric from the cost of each error type, not from habit.

Follow-up

How would you know the model is overfitting?
What changes if the classes are heavily imbalanced?

Implement text summarization using the BERT API.

Medium · machine learning fundamentals

Approach

Say how you would validate it, and where leakage could enter the split.
State the learning problem: the label, the unit of prediction and how the model is used.
Name the simplest model that could work and what would make you move past it.

Follow-up

What changes if the classes are heavily imbalanced?
Where could label leakage enter this setup?

Track a rolling failure rate per destination for circuit decisions

Easy · sliding window · ring buffer · circuit breaker

The egress service delivers about 1,500 webhooks per second across roughly 40,000 destinations, each call bounded by a 10 second timeout. Maintain, per destination, the failure rate over the trailing 60 seconds so a caller can ask before dispatch whether the circuit should open. Attempts arrive as (destination_id, finished_at_ms, outcome). Requirement: amortised O(1) per attempt, with total memory bounded by the destination count rather than by traffic. Give the structure, its exact memory, and the rule that stops a destination with three attempts from opening a circuit.

Approach

Name the exact-deque version and then reject it as the default. Holding timestamps and advancing a tail pointer past anything older than now minus 60 seconds is a correct two-pointer window at amortised O(1) per attempt, but its memory tracks in-window traffic, so one destination in a retry storm holds hundreds of thousands of entries while thousands of quiet destinations hold none.
Use a ring of 60 one-second buckets per destination, each bucket a pair of counters for attempts and failures. On an attempt, advance the ring by the elapsed whole seconds, zeroing at most min(elapsed, 60) buckets, then increment the head. That is amortised O(1) with a fixed footprint per destination.
State the footprint: 60 buckets times two 4-byte counters is 480 bytes of payload per destination, so 40,000 destinations is roughly 20 to 25 MB with per-entry overhead, bounded by the catalogue rather than by the rate. The cost is granularity, since the oldest bucket ages out in whole seconds, which is far tighter than the decision needs.
Require a minimum sample before the circuit may open. A destination with three attempts and three failures reads as 100 percent and is not evidence; a floor of roughly 20 attempts in the window makes the ratio meaningful, and below that floor use a run of consecutive failures as the trigger instead.
Expire idle destinations, or memory grows with every destination ever seen rather than with the live set. Hold the rings in a bounded LRU keyed on destination_id and treat a miss as no history, which is the correct default for an endpoint that has been silent for a minute.
Keep the half-open probe out of the window arithmetic. After the circuit opens, one probe per interval decides whether to close it, and folding that single success into a window that still holds a 100 percent failure history would reopen the destination on one data point.

Worked solution (20 min)

Define the bucket struct and the advance step: take floor(finished_at_ms / 1000), compare with the ring's current second, zero min(delta, 60) buckets forward, then write into the new head.
Trace a destination that receives 5 attempts, goes silent for 90 seconds, then receives one more, and confirm the rate is computed from one attempt rather than six.
Compute total memory for 40,000 destinations at 60 buckets of two 4-byte counters, and state what changes if the window widens to 300 seconds.
Write the open rule as a single predicate combining the minimum-attempt floor with the rate threshold.

Expected result: A per-destination ring of 60 one-second (attempts, failures) buckets advanced lazily for amortised O(1) cost, roughly 480 bytes of counters per destination and about 20 to 25 MB for 40,000 of them, an LRU bound on live rings, and an open rule requiring both a minimum attempt count in the window and a rate above threshold.

Verify it yourself

After 60 seconds of silence a destination's window holds zero attempts and cannot open a circuit.
Memory measured with one hot destination and 39,999 idle ones is indistinguishable from the reverse, which the deque version would fail.
Replaying the same attempt stream with the clock shifted by an hour yields the same final rate.

Follow-up

The fleet is 30 instances and each sees roughly a thirtieth of a destination's traffic. Where does the rate actually live, and what does a per-instance answer get wrong?
A destination answers in 9.5 seconds and succeeds. It is not failing but it is consuming your per-destination concurrency. What signal should open the circuit here?
How would you make the window survive a process restart, and is it worth the cost?

Write the update path that detects a concurrent edit

Medium · optimistic concurrency · transactional outbox · audit history

resource carries version INT NOT NULL DEFAULT 1. resource_revision holds revision_id, resource_id, version, actor_user_id, change_kind, patch JSONB, request_id, created_at with UNIQUE (resource_id, version). outbox_event holds aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, event_type, payload, status. A PUT carries the version the client read. Write the exact statements for the single transaction that applies the edit, records the revision and enqueues 'resource.updated', and give the handler's branch on zero affected rows. Then say what PostgreSQL 16 does under READ COMMITTED when two of these updates hit one row at once.

Approach

One transaction, three writes, no network call inside it: UPDATE resource SET title = $3, version = version + 1, updated_at = now() WHERE resource_id = $1 AND tenant_id = $4 AND version = $2; then INSERT the resource_revision row at version $2 + 1; then INSERT the outbox_event row at the same aggregate_version. The event goes to a table rather than a broker because no transaction spans both.
Branch on the affected-row count before doing anything else. Zero has three causes — stale version, wrong tenant, row gone — so re-read once and map to 409 carrying the current version, or 404 for an id outside the caller's tenant, which also stops the endpoint confirming that another tenant's id exists.
State the engine behaviour instead of assuming it. Under READ COMMITTED the second UPDATE blocks on the row lock, and when the first commits PostgreSQL re-evaluates the WHERE clause against the newly committed row, so the version predicate now fails and the statement reports zero rows. Under REPEATABLE READ the identical collision raises SQLSTATE 40001 instead, so the handler must fold both shapes into one conflict response.
Keep UNIQUE (resource_id, version) even though the predicate already serialises writers. It is what makes a lost update unwritable if any other path ever reaches the revision table, and it converts a logic bug into 23505 rather than into a silently missing history row.
Refuse to auto-retry the whole PUT. A retry re-reads the winner's state and reapplies an intent formed against data that no longer exists — the silent overwrite the version token was added to detect. Return the conflict; merge field-wise only if the patches are provably disjoint.
Note that now() is the transaction timestamp in PostgreSQL, so resource.updated_at, the revision's created_at and the outbox row share one instant, which is what later makes reconciliation between the three tables unambiguous.

Follow-up

A client sends the version it read ten minutes ago and the resource has moved three versions. What is in your 409 so it can resolve the conflict without a full re-fetch?
Two editors, two disjoint fields, no overlap. Does your answer still refuse the second write, and should it?
Every write now touches a second hot table. How do you keep the outbox insert and its partial index from becoming the write bottleneck at 1.2k writes/second?

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
State the residual honestly. Keyset is stable against concurrent inserts and deletes, but not against a row whose updated_at changes mid-scroll — that row moves in the ordering and can be seen twice. If the feed must be a snapshot, order by an immutable key or bound the page set with updated_at <= the cursor's start value.
Keep a total out of the page path. A tenant-wide COUNT(*) is the scan keyset just removed; fetch LIMIT 51 and return has_more instead.

Worked solution (25 min)

Seed one tenant with 500k active resources, 2% of them sharing an identical updated_at.
Time LIMIT 50 OFFSET 0 against OFFSET 20000 and record rows-read from EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) for each.
Page the whole set with the keyset query while an insert-only writer adds 100 rows/second, collecting resource_ids, and repeat the run with OFFSET.
Repeat both runs under a second writer profile that also deletes 20 rows/second from pages already returned and bumps updated_at on 20 more, and diff each collected id set against the rows that existed for the whole run.
Remove resource_id from the cursor so the seek degrades to updated_at < $2, and re-run the tie-heavy section of the feed.

Expected result: Keyset reads about 50 index entries per page and its latency is flat from page 1 to page 10,000; under both writer profiles the collected ids contain no duplicate and omit no row that existed for the whole scroll. OFFSET at page 400 reads 20,050 rows to return 50. Under the insert-only writer it repeats rows and skips none — an insert can only push a row down past the boundary — and only the second profile, whose deletes and updated_at bumps move rows up past the cursor, also makes it skip. Without the tie-break, the seek is updated_at < $2, which drops every still-unread row sharing the boundary timestamp.

Verify it yourself

EXPLAIN shows an Index Scan with no Sort node — a Sort means the ORDER BY is not satisfied by the index.
Buffers read per page stays constant as page depth grows.
Ids collected across the scroll are unique, and complete for rows untouched during the run.

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?
What does the cursor do when the row it points at has since been deleted?

Make the resource write endpoint safe for retrying clients

Easy · idempotency · unique constraints · retries

The edge API accepts POST /v1/resources at 1.2k writes/second peak under a 400 ms p99 budget, and clients retry on timeout. idempotency_key has PRIMARY KEY (tenant_id, idempotency_key) plus request_fingerprint CHAR(64), state in ('in_flight','succeeded','failed'), response_status, response_body, resource_id, locked_until and expires_at. Specify the exact sequence the handler runs: what the second request does when it arrives while the first is still executing, what a retry carrying a different body receives, what happens when a process dies mid-request, and how the table is kept from growing without bound.

Approach

Start from the race rather than the happy path. Insert the key row first, in its own short transaction, with state 'in_flight' and locked_until set to now() plus the request deadline. The unique constraint on (tenant_id, idempotency_key) is the arbitration mechanism: exactly one caller commits the insert, and every other caller takes a unique violation (SQLSTATE 23505) and becomes a follower. Reading the table and then inserting is a check-then-act race that both callers pass, and they pass it most often under the load that generates the retries.
Give the follower a branch for every state it can observe, with no fall-through to doing the work: fingerprint mismatch means the key is being reused for a different request, so reject with 422 and never replay the stored response; 'succeeded' replays response_status and response_body verbatim; 'failed' allows a fresh attempt; 'in_flight' with locked_until in the future is answered with 409 and a retry hint, or a short bounded wait, because the only alternative is executing the effect twice.
Commit the effect and the record of the effect together. The resource insert, its resource_revision row, its outbox_event row and the transition of the key row to 'succeeded' all happen in one transaction, so no crash can leave the work done and the key still 'in_flight'. The earlier insert is deliberately a separate transaction: it has to be visible to a concurrent caller before the work starts, which an uncommitted row is not.
Close the wedged-key path. A process that dies after the insert leaves a row that would otherwise block that key forever, which is what locked_until exists for. Reclaim with a single conditional statement, UPDATE ... SET state='in_flight', locked_until=now()+interval WHERE ... AND state='in_flight' AND locked_until < now(), and treat a zero rowcount as losing the reclaim. Two statements that read and then update reintroduce the original race one layer down.
Size the retention before it becomes an incident. At the 1.2k/second peak a 24-hour window is on the order of 100 million rows, and the table grows with traffic rather than with data, so the sweep is load-bearing. Batched deletes driven by an index on expires_at keep it bounded. Range-partitioning by day and dropping whole partitions is cheaper, but PostgreSQL requires every partition-key column to appear in the primary key, so the key becomes (tenant_id, idempotency_key, created_at) and a retry that straddles the boundary no longer collides with its original. State that cost rather than meeting it later.

Worked solution (20 min)

Draw a timeline with the retry arriving 150 ms into a 900 ms first attempt, and mark the instant each row becomes visible to the other transaction.
Write the insert-first statement, then a five-row branch table for the follower: fingerprint mismatch, 'succeeded', 'failed', live 'in_flight', expired 'in_flight' - one action each.
Write the single conditional UPDATE that reclaims an expired in_flight row, and argue why two concurrent reclaimers cannot both see a non-zero rowcount.
Compute rows per day at peak, name the index the sweep uses, and check the sweep rate against the insert rate.

Expected result: The key row is inserted at 'in_flight' in its own transaction before any work; the unique violation identifies the follower. The follower replays the stored response on 'succeeded', returns 422 on a fingerprint mismatch, and waits or returns 409 on a live 'in_flight', never performing the work itself. The effect, its revision row, its outbox row and the transition to 'succeeded' commit in one transaction. Expired in_flight rows are reclaimed by one conditional UPDATE, and expired keys are swept in batches.

Verify it yourself

The retry creates no second resource row, whether it arrives during the first attempt or after it.
A retry with the same key and a changed body is rejected rather than served the first attempt's response.
Killing the process between the key insert and the commit leaves a key that is reclaimable within locked_until rather than one that is stuck.
For create operations, every key row in state 'succeeded' carries a resource_id that exists.

Follow-up

The stored response body averages 200 KB and this table is now the largest in the database. What do you store instead, and what does a replay return once the body has been pruned?
A client library generates a fresh idempotency key on every attempt. What breaks, which layer should have caught it, and does the server have any defence?
The first attempt succeeded but its response was lost, and the client retries 30 hours later, after the key expired. What does the second attempt do, and is that acceptable?

Make resource creation safe for a client that retried a timeout

Medium · idempotency · retries · race conditions

POST /v1/resources creates a resource row and, in the same transaction, a resource_revision and an outbox_event. A partner's HTTP client times out at 2 seconds and retries twice; under load the first request is still executing when the retry arrives, and duplicate resources are appearing. Using idempotency_key (tenant_id, idempotency_key, request_fingerprint, state, response_status, response_body, resource_id, locked_until, expires_at), specify the whole contract: first call, concurrent retry, retry after completion, a key reused with a different body, and what the client does with each response.

Approach

Name why the plain REST shape fails here. POST is not idempotent, a timeout leaves the client unable to distinguish a lost request from a lost response, so it must retry - and the retry is a second create. Checking whether the key exists and then inserting it is check-then-act: under exactly the concurrency that caused the timeout, both attempts look, both see nothing, both proceed.
Let the unique constraint arbitrate instead. INSERT the key row with state 'in_flight' and locked_until set to now plus the request deadline, and commit that reservation on its own before any work is attempted - an uncommitted row is invisible to the concurrent retry, which is the entire point of writing it first. One caller wins the insert and proceeds; the other takes the unique violation and reads the row rather than falling through to the work.
Branch the loser on what it found. 'succeeded' replays response_status and response_body verbatim, with a header marking it a replay. 'in_flight' with locked_until in the future returns 409 and a Retry-After - do not park a request thread waiting on another request, that is how a concurrency bound is consumed by retries. 'in_flight' past locked_until is reclaimable by a conditional UPDATE predicated on the old locked_until, so exactly one reclaimer wins. A fingerprint mismatch is 422 and never the stored response: a different body under the same key is a client defect, and serving the old response hides it forever.
Commit the effect and the key's completion together - resource insert, revision row, outbox row, and the UPDATE of the reserved key to 'succeeded' with the stored response, in one transaction. That makes a crash binary: either all of it is durable and the key reads 'succeeded', or the transaction rolls back and the only durable trace is the reservation row, still 'in_flight', with no resource behind it. The reclaim branch finishes that case - once locked_until passes, one retry takes the row by conditional UPDATE and runs the work for the first time. Splitting the two commits is what creates the window with no recovery: the effect durable, the key still 'in_flight', and a reclaimer that cannot distinguish that from work never started, so it creates a second resource.
State the lifetime explicitly. Keys expire - 24 hours is a common choice - and are swept, so the client's total retry window must be shorter than the TTL, or a late retry re-executes with no record that it is a duplicate. The key is scoped by tenant so two tenants choosing the same string do not collide, and the client generates one key per logical attempt, not per network send.
Write the client rules: on timeout, retry the same key with capped backoff; on 409, wait Retry-After and retry the same key; on 422, stop and fix the caller; on 2xx, treat the body as authoritative whether it was executed or replayed.

Follow-up

Response bodies are pruned at 24 hours but resource_id is kept. What do you return to a replay that arrives after pruning?
The endpoint now also sends a welcome email. Which part of this contract prevents a second send, and which part cannot?
What exactly breaks if the key is scoped globally rather than per tenant?

p99 jumped on one listing filter while p50 stayed flat

Medium · query planning · composite index · percentiles · tail latency

After a release that added an owner_user_id filter to the resource listing, p99 rose from 90 ms to 1.9 s while p50 stayed at 40 ms. Traffic and row counts are unchanged. resource carries the index (tenant_id, status, updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC). The new query filters tenant_id and owner_user_id, orders by updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC, and takes 20 rows. On PostgreSQL, explain the shape of the regression, prove it from a query plan, and give the index you would add.

Approach

Start from the shape. A flat p50 with a moved p99 means a subset of requests changed cost, not all of them, so the first job is naming the subset. Bucket the endpoint's latency by the tenant's row count; the natural hypothesis is that large tenants are a small share of requests and all of the tail.
Get the plan for the new query on a large tenant with EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS). Expect an index scan over the tenant's range, a filter discarding most of it, then a Sort feeding the Limit, possibly reporting Sort Method: external merge Disk. Read actual rows on the scan node, not estimated.
Explain why the existing index cannot serve it. A composite B-tree is seekable only as a left prefix, and with no equality predicate on status the scan cannot treat updated_at as an ordering, because rows in the tenant's range are ordered by status first. Everything matching must be read and sorted before LIMIT 20 can apply, so a tenant with 400,000 rows pays 400,000 rows to return 20.
Add (tenant_id, owner_user_id, updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC). Equality on the first two columns leaves the index ordered by updated_at within that pair, so the plan becomes an index scan that stops after 20 rows with no Sort node. PostgreSQL can scan a B-tree backwards, so the DESC markers matter only if the two sort columns ever disagree in direction; keeping them explicit documents the order the keyset cursor depends on.
Price the fix. This is a fourth index on a table taking about 1.2k writes/second, and every insert and version bump maintains it. Justify it against the query it serves, and check whether it makes an existing index redundant, which here it does not, since the original still serves the status-filtered default listing.
Re-measure per tenant-size bucket rather than in aggregate. A fleet-wide p99 can improve while the largest tenant is still on the old plan.

Follow-up

The endpoint paginates with OFFSET. What does page 500 cost with your index, and what does the keyset version cost?
How would you have caught this before release, given that a 10,000-row seed database produces the same plan shape at an unnoticeable cost?
If a fourth index were unacceptable on write grounds, what else could serve this query?

Suggested practice checklist

For someone fluent in a dynamic language who has shipped real work but has never had to say what the runtime is doing underneath. The week is built on measuring and deliberately breaking things, because the questions that expose this background are the ones where the interviewer asks why a second time.

Day 1 — Measure before reasoning

Take a slow piece of your own code, write down in advance where you believe the time goes, then profile it and record how wrong the guess was. The cost is usually an allocation you did not notice or an accidental quadratic membership test.
Replace one list membership test inside a loop with a set and measure at a thousand, ten thousand and a hundred thousand elements, confirming the shape of the curve rather than only that it got faster.
Write down the three quantities you can now measure instead of assert: wall time, peak memory, and call count for the function you suspected.

Deliverable: A before-and-after profile of real code plus a written note on the size of the gap between the guess and the measurement.

Day 2 — References, copies, and the bugs they produce

Write the function with a mutable default argument, call it three times, and explain the accumulating result: the default is evaluated once when the function is defined, so every call shares one object.
Build a nested structure, take a shallow copy, mutate an inner element, and show that both views changed, because a shallow copy duplicates the container and not the elements. Then fix it with a deep copy and state the cost you just accepted.
Write two functions, one mutating its argument in place and one rebinding the local name, and predict the caller's view of each before running it. That single distinction produces most of the bugs that pass their tests.

Deliverable: Three small programs whose output you predicted correctly before running, each with a one-line statement of the rule underneath.

Day 3 — Types, once, in a language that checks them

Port one module you have already written, roughly a hundred lines, into a statically typed language, and record every place the compiler demanded an answer your original had left implicit: a value that can be absent, a numeric width, a case never handled.
Write the same signature in both languages and state what the static one guarantees before the program runs and what it does not, since it will not save you from a wrong algorithm or an index out of range.
Write the difference between an interface satisfied by declaration and one satisfied structurally, with one case each where the other approach would miss the mistake.

Deliverable: One module in two languages plus a list of the questions the type checker forced you to answer.

Day 4 — Concurrency, starting with what actually runs at the same time

Run the same CPU-bound function across four threads and four processes and measure both. Under the default CPython build the threaded version will not speed up, because only one thread executes bytecode at a time; the process version will. Check which build you are on first, since free-threaded builds remove that lock and change the result.
Then run a blocking I/O workload across four threads and measure it speeding up, because the interpreter releases that lock around blocking calls, which is why treating threads as useless is wrong as a general claim.
Build the lost update: two threads each incrementing a shared counter a hundred thousand times, and show a final value below the expected sum, because an increment is a load, an add and a store and the thread can be suspended between them. Fix it with a lock and then measure what the lock costs.

Deliverable: Three measurements, threads against processes on CPU work, threads on I/O work, and a demonstrated lost update, each with the mechanism written underneath.

Day 5 — Debugging as a procedure rather than an instinct

Work one real failure as a bisection: find a revision or an input size where it is good and one where it is bad, halve repeatedly, and state the two assumptions bisection needs, that the property changes exactly once across the range and that the test is reliable.
Minimise one failing input to the smallest version that still fails, and record how many rounds it took.
Keep a hypothesis log for one bug in three columns, what I believe, what would disprove it, what I observed, and stop yourself the first time you are about to change two things at once.

Deliverable: One bug worked to root cause with a written hypothesis log and a minimised reproducing input.

Day 6 — Tests that catch the bug you are about to write

Implement an LRU cache with a capacity bound, then write the three test cases that would catch an off-by-one in eviction: insert exactly capacity items and assert nothing was evicted, insert one more and assert the least recently used key is the one gone, and read an old key just before that insert so the eviction victim changes.
Add a property test comparing your implementation against a deliberately slow reference, an ordered list scanned linearly, over a few thousand random operation sequences, because a slow reference finds the cases you would not have thought to write.
Write one numeric test that fails under exact equality and passes with a tolerance, and state why the tolerance has to be relative rather than absolute once the magnitudes grow.

Deliverable: An LRU implementation with three boundary tests, one property test against a slow reference, and one tolerance-based numeric test.

Day 7 — Debug something broken, out loud

Have someone plant three defects in a two-hundred-line program, an off-by-one, a shared mutable state bug, and a wrong error-handling path, then find them while narrating, under a fixed rule: state the hypothesis before touching anything.
Time each one and record which tool found it, reading, a printed value, a debugger, or a test, because the question asked in interviews is how you would find it rather than what it was.
Write the sentence you will use when you do not yet know the cause, one that names the next measurement instead of offering a guess.

Deliverable: A recorded debugging session with time-to-find per defect and the method that found each.

The failure that was yours

Keep one story where the bad call was yours rather than a dependency's or a manager's. Name the check that would have caught it, whether you added that check afterwards, and whether it has fired since. Answers that route blame outward end the conversation early; answers that end in a guardrail someone still relies on tend to open it up.

Unblock an engineer without taking the keyboard

Easy · mentoring · leases · at-least-once

A teammate has spent two days on a job handler that occasionally writes duplicate rows. They are certain the queue is delivering twice by mistake. You suspect a lease expiring under a slow handler, so the job is running concurrently with itself. Describe how you have unblocked someone in this position: what you asked before offering a hypothesis, what you showed them rather than told them, and what you left them owning. Then say what you would do if their theory turned out to be the right one.

Approach

Ask before diagnosing, and ask for things answerable from data they already have: the attempt count on the job rows that produced duplicates, the handler's observed duration against its lease expiry, and whether the duplicate rows share a natural key that a unique constraint could have caught.
Teach the shape rather than the answer. A lease cannot distinguish a dead worker from a slow one, so a handler that outruns its lease is running twice by design, and deploys deliver the other half by killing handlers mid-run on every rollout. Both of their candidate theories produce identical duplicate rows, which is why the evidence has to come from timings rather than from argument.
Hand over a checklist they execute: a natural key on every write the handler performs so the second copy collides rather than appends, the record of intent written before any external effect, a lease heartbeat while running, and the metric that shows it working.
Keep ownership with them deliberately. Pair on the first write, then step back; if you finish it yourself you have closed one ticket and left the same person stuck on the next redelivery.
Close on the systemic gap that let two days pass, which is usually a missing dashboard for attempt counts or an undocumented at-least-once contract, and fix that rather than only the bug.

Follow-up

How would you distinguish a genuine double-delivery from a lease expiry using only the data already stored?
Their handler calls an external endpoint before recording that it did. What do you tell them to change first?
What do you do the third time the same person brings you the same class of bug?

Narrate an outage you owned from page to postmortem

Hard · incident response · blast radius · postmortems

Pick an incident you personally drove, ideally one where writes were affected rather than reads. In six to eight minutes: state the symptom as it first appeared on a dashboard, the blast radius you established before you knew the cause, the mitigation you applied and when, the mechanism you eventually proved, and the follow-up that would prevent a repeat. Bring numbers: error rate, tenants affected, minutes to mitigate, minutes to resolve. If you cannot name what you measured, choose a different incident.

Approach

Open on the signal rather than the cause: which metric at which percentile moved, on which service, at what time, so the listener follows the same evidence you had rather than a conclusion you already reached.
Separate mitigation from diagnosis out loud. State what you did to stop the bleeding (flag off, shed traffic, drain a lease, roll back a deploy) and say plainly that you did it before the mechanism was known, because those are two jobs with different deadlines.
Establish blast radius in countable terms: how many tenants, how many writes, and crucially whether the effect was loss or only delay. An append-only revision table or a pending outbox row means the change survived and the projection was merely behind, which is a repair rather than a data-loss incident.
Prove the mechanism instead of asserting it. Name the trace span that grew, the plan that flipped to a sequential scan, the lease that expired, plus one alternative you ruled out and the signal that stayed flat while you ruled it out.
Close on the durable fix and its cost, distinguishing what landed that week from what needed an expand-and-contract migration across several deploys, and say which of the two you actually finished.

Follow-up

What would you do differently in the first five minutes, given the same dashboard and no more information?
Which follow-up action did you deliberately not take, and why was dropping it the right call?
How did you convince yourself the mitigation was safe to apply while the cause was still unknown?

Reverse your own decision and price the reversal

Medium · reversibility · measurement · migrations

Describe a technical decision you made and later reversed. Pick one that cost something: a service you split and merged back, a cache you added and removed, an index you created that pushed the planner onto a worse plan, a projection you rebuilt from scratch. State what you believed when you decided, the measurement that changed your mind, how long the wrong version ran in production, and what the reversal cost in migrations, dual writes, and a deprecation window for callers you did not own.

Approach

State the original rationale without irony, in the version you would still defend given what was known then. If it is not defensible, the story is about carelessness rather than judgement, and a different example serves you better.
Give the measurement that moved with a before and after: the p99 that did not improve, the cache hit rate that sat at 40%, the plan that flipped to a sequential scan once the table passed a size you can name.
Cost the reversal in steps, not adjectives: expand-and-contract deploys, the dual-write window, the callers who had to be notified, the rows already written in the wrong shape that had to be backfilled or abandoned.
Distinguish reversal from rewrite by naming what you kept. Most good reversals preserve the schema or the interface and undo one decision inside it, which is also why they were affordable.
Finish on the process change: the smallest experiment that would have produced the same measurement in a day, and why you did not run it the first time.

Follow-up

What in that decision was irreversible, and did you know it was irreversible when you made it?
How did you tell the people who had already built on top of the original decision?
What do you now measure before committing to a change of this size?