Figure AI Software Engineer Interview Guide

The 60-second brief

As a Software Engineer at Figure AI, you will play a foundational role in building the software ecosystem that powers advanced humanoid robotics. This position sits at the intersection of complex systems, robotic integration, and high-performance computing, where your code directly translates into physical, real-world utility. You will be responsible for developing robust software solutions that enable autonomous behavior, seamless hardware-software communication, and scalable robotic deployment.

Scope in the operational half of the job when the seat carries on-call. Rollout, rollback and what you would put on a dashboard belong inside a design answer rather than after it, and an answer that never reaches them reads as someone who has built systems but not run them.

Focus areas

• Make every write idempotent under client retries
• Scope every query and cache key by tenant
• Bound blast radius with per-tenant concurrency limits

Overview

The impact of this role extends across multiple high-stakes domains, from core robotic motion and perception pipelines to warehouse integration and operational efficiency. Because Figure AI operates at a rapid pace, your contributions will directly accelerate the company's mission to deploy general-purpose humanoid robots into commercial and industrial environments. You will collaborate closely with multidisciplinary teams of roboticists, mechanical engineers, and hardware specialists to solve unprecedented technical hurdles.

This role requires a unique blend of deep technical competence, adaptability, and a high tolerance for ambiguity. You will encounter complex, distributed, and resource-constrained environments where traditional software paradigms do not always apply. If you thrive on hard engineering problems, enjoy moving fast, and want to see your code manifest in physical hardware, this position offers an unmatched arena for professional impact.

The Figure AI interview process

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

Application Submission

When a round has no standard shape, it is often there because something is still open: an area no earlier conversation reached, a round where the signal came out mixed, or a decision someone is not ready to make alone. Work out which by going back over what each earlier round actually covered rather than how it felt, and arrive able to give evidence on that point without being asked twice. Weak answers replay the loop's earlier material at the same depth. Strong ones go a level deeper and stay consistent with what you already said.

What to demonstrate

• Whether your account of a project matches the one you gave earlier in the loop, since what you said before may be available to whoever runs this round
• Whether you can go a level deeper on something already covered, reaching the decision and its alternatives rather than repeating the summary
• Whether you state your own uncertainty accurately, including parts of a system you did not build and decisions you inherited, instead of claiming even ownership across all of it
• Whether you can answer a question you handled poorly earlier by naming what you missed, rather than delivering a polished second version as if the first had not happened

How to prepare

• Reconstruct the loop on one page: for each round, the questions you were asked and the answer you actually gave, not the better one you thought of afterwards. The gaps on that page are your best available guess at why this round exists.
• Take the two claims you made earlier that carry the most weight and assemble the backing for each: the measurement, the date, what broke, the decision you would make differently now.
• Write down the three facts about your work that must not drift between tellings, such as team size, timeline and your own role, and check your stories against that list rather than trusting recall under pressure

Initial Screening Call

The person on this call usually cannot evaluate your code and does not need to. They write a short paragraph, and that paragraph is what a hiring manager skims when deciding who to put on your loop. So the test is not whether your work was hard, it is whether a non-engineer can repeat it correctly. Name systems by what they did rather than by their internal codename, give each project a shape (what was breaking, what you changed, what happened after), and keep the whole walkthrough near ninety seconds. Depth that cannot survive a paraphrase reads as vagueness.

What to demonstrate

• Whether a non-engineer can restate your projects without distorting them, since their paraphrase is what travels to the hiring manager, not your sentences
• Whether each project has a shape rather than a stack list: the failure or constraint, the change you made, the result and how it was measured
• Whether you can say what was yours inside a team project without either inflating it or disappearing into the plural

How to prepare

• Rewrite each headline project as two sentences with no internal system names and no acronyms outside your company, then say them to someone outside engineering and have them repeat them back. Fix whatever came back wrong
• Attach one measured number to each project: the baseline, the change, and the window it was measured over. Where nothing was ever measured, say that plainly rather than reaching for a plausible percentage
• Time the background walkthrough against a clock. If it runs past two minutes, compress the earliest role to a single clause and spend the recovered time on the most recent one

Deep-Dive Discussions

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

Final Round Interview

A day like this is several different games in a row, and the expensive mistake is carrying the previous one into the next room. Coding rewards narrow precision and finishing inside a timer. Design rewards breadth, stated assumptions and naming what you are deliberately not building. Behavioural rewards specificity about people and decisions. Candidates who over-engineer a coding problem they were supposed to finish, or who start sketching class hierarchies before anyone has agreed what the system has to do, are usually still playing the last round. Between rooms, name out loud which game the next one is.

What to demonstrate

• Whether the coding round ends with something that runs and has been traced against a degenerate input, rather than an extensible design that was never finished
• Whether a design discussion opens by agreeing on traffic shape, read-to-write ratio and what is allowed to be stale, instead of proceeding from an architecture you arrived with
• Whether a behavioural answer names a person, a disagreement and what you did about it, rather than describing the system the story happened inside
• Whether the opening habits still appear late in the day: restating the problem, asking for constraints, saying the plan before typing

How to prepare

• Book three mocks of different types back to back on one afternoon and ask each interviewer afterwards which round you answered in the wrong mode
• Write a three-line opening script per round type — coding: restate, name the approach and its cost, then type; design: ask for scale, read-write mix and what must not break; behavioural: name the person, the stakes and the decision — and run it off a card so the switch is mechanical rather than remembered
• Practise coding with a timer you do not extend, stopping when it stops, so the trained reflex is to finish a correct solution rather than to keep improving one

Where candidates lose points

Checking a quota with a select and then writing

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

Paginating a growing table with limit and offset

Two unrelated defects share the idiom. Correctness: rows inserted or deleted between page requests shift the window, so a consumer walking an export skips rows and sees others twice, which for a customer-facing sync is silent data loss rather than an error anyone notices. Cost: the database still produces and discards the skipped rows, so page N costs time proportional to N times the page size and a deep page on a large table degrades from milliseconds to seconds. Keyset pagination over a stable, unique, indexed ordering -- where (created_at, id) < ($1, $2) order by created_at desc, id desc limit $3 -- is constant-cost per page and immune to shifting, on the precondition that the cursor columns never change value for a row, which disqualifies updated_at as a cursor.

Finishing a solution without stating its complexity

Give time and space in the same breath as the code, and define n explicitly when there are two sizes, since n nodes and m edges are not interchangeable. Space is the half that gets skipped: count the auxiliary structures you allocate and the recursion stack at its deepest, not only the answer you hand back.

Choosing a schema before the access patterns are known

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

Questions & practice

Fold a deduplicated usage stream into hourly rollups

Easy · aggregation · deduplication · watermarks · exact-arithmetic

You are given one day of usage_event rows, up to 250 million, each carrying event_id, tenant_id, workspace_id, environment, sku, quantity numeric(20,6), idempotency_key, occurred_at and ingested_at. Produce usage_rollup_hourly cells keyed (tenant_id, workspace_id, sku, hour_start) with quantity_sum, event_count and source_max_ingested_at. An event counts once per (tenant_id, idempotency_key). The rollup grain has no environment column, so state your filter. One pass. Give your time and space bounds, and say what the deduplication actually costs in memory.

Approach

1. Bucket on occurred_at, never ingested_at: hour_start = date_trunc('hour', occurred_at at time zone 'UTC'). The two columns answer different questions. occurred_at says which hour the customer is billed for; ingested_at says how current the fold is. Using the second for the first makes late data invisible instead of correctable.
2. The fold is trivial and the deduplication is the entire cost, so price it before designing anything clever. An exact set over (tenant_id, idempotency_key) at 250M entries, stored as a 16-byte 128-bit hash in an open-addressed table at 0.7 load factor, needs about 357M slots at 16 bytes each, roughly 5.7 GB. The fix is partitioning by hash(tenant_id) % P so each shard holds 1/P of the set and no tenant's keys straddle shards.
3. Rule out a Bloom filter as a replacement, in the right direction: a false positive reports 'already seen' for an event never seen, so you drop a real event and lose revenue with no error raised. It is usable only as a negative pre-filter in front of the exact set, where a miss is conclusive and a hit must fall through to the real lookup.
4. Accumulate in scaled integers, not binary floating point. numeric(20,6) admits values below 10^14, so one event scaled to micro-units can reach 10^20, past int64's 9.22 x 10^18; use a 128-bit or arbitrary-precision accumulator unless you first bound the per-event maximum. binary64 represents integers exactly only to 2^53, about 9.01 x 10^15, and cannot represent 0.1 at all, so two runs that sum in different orders disagree.
5. Carry source_max_ingested_at = max(ingested_at) over the events folded into each cell, and count event_count over accepted, post-dedup events. Without that watermark there is no way to prove later what a number did and did not include, which is the first question any reconciliation asks.
6. State the environment filter explicitly, because the rollup grain cannot record it. A fold that quietly includes staging bills non-production traffic; one that quietly excludes it loses a cost signal. Production-only is the billing answer, and either way it belongs in the job name and the output metadata. Complexity: O(n) time, O(distinct dedup keys) space, dominated by the dedup set rather than by the cells.

Follow-up

• A producer retries at 23:59:59 and the retry lands at 00:00:01. The unique index on the daily-partitioned table must include the partition key. What gets double-counted, and what is the smallest change that fixes it?
• The consumer acknowledges its batch before committing the fold. Which failure loses revenue now, and which arrangement duplicates instead?
• What makes a re-run over the same day produce byte-identical rollups?

Parse and verify a timestamped multi-signature webhook header

Easy · parsing · hmac · constant-time-compare · replay-protection

An inbound webhook carries a signature header of at most 1 KiB shaped t=<unix seconds>,v1=<64 hex chars>, with up to five v1 values during secret rotation and possibly unknown scheme keys. You hold the raw request body bytes and the currently active signing secrets. Write the parser and the verifier: accept when any active secret reproduces a signature and the timestamp is within a five-minute tolerance in either direction, reject otherwise. Single left-to-right pass over the header, no regular expression. State what is inside the MAC and why.

Approach

1. Parse in one scan: split on ,, then on the first = only, since a value may itself contain = under a future scheme. Accept t exactly once and treat a second t as a reject rather than last-wins. Push every v1 onto a short list and ignore any other key, so a v2 can be introduced later without breaking this verifier.
2. Say what is signed: HMAC-SHA256 over the exact byte string <t>.<raw body bytes>, yielding 32 bytes or 64 hex characters. The timestamp sits inside the MAC because otherwise an attacker replays yesterday's body with its still-valid signature and only has to edit the header timestamp.
3. Hash the bytes as received. Verifying against a re-serialised JSON body is the usual defect: key order, whitespace and number formatting all change the bytes while the parsed objects compare equal, so signatures fail for honest senders and the popular 'fix' is to stop checking.
4. Compare in constant time over fixed-length digests. Decode the hex to 32 bytes, accumulate acc |= a[i] ^ b[i] across the whole length, and test acc == 0 at the end. Evaluate every candidate without an early exit; at five candidates that is five HMACs over the body, linear in body size and negligible beside the network.
5. Apply the tolerance as a two-sided bound, rejecting when |now - t| > 300 seconds. A sender whose clock runs ahead of yours is an ordinary case, and an unbounded future timestamp is a free replay window.
6. Complexity: O(L) over the header producing k candidates, plus k HMACs at O(|body|) each. Space is O(k) beyond the body itself. Do the cheap rejections, including the tolerance check, before any cryptography runs.

Worked solution (15 min)

1. Write the grammar on one line before coding: header := field (',' field)*, field := key '=' value, split on the first = only.
2. Implement the parser to return {t: int, v1: [hex, ...]}, rejecting a missing t, a duplicate t, any v1 that is not 64 hex characters, and a header over 1 KiB, all before any cryptography runs.
3. Implement the verifier: for each active secret compute HMAC-SHA256(secret, f'{t}.'.encode() + raw_body), compare it in constant time against each parsed v1, and OR the results with no early exit.
4. Test with a valid signature; the same body with t moved 400 seconds into the past; the same body with t 400 seconds into the future; a header carrying an unknown v2= alongside a valid v1; and a body re-serialised with different JSON key order.

Expected result: The valid case accepts. Both out-of-tolerance cases reject, including the future one. The unknown v2 field is ignored and the v1 still verifies. The re-serialised body fails, which is correct and is exactly why the raw bytes must be retained.

Verify it yourself

• Timing the comparison over 10,000 mismatching signatures that differ at the first character versus the last shows no separation you can measure.
• Removing t from the MAC input makes an old captured body with its original signature pass. Write that test, watch it pass, then put t back.
• Every rejection except the signature mismatch itself returns before an HMAC is computed.

Follow-up

• The body is 40 MB. What changes about where you verify, and what can you do before the whole body has arrived?
• A customer reports that signatures fail for exactly the requests whose body contains a non-ASCII character. What is your first hypothesis?
• How do you rotate the signing secret with no failed deliveries, and how long do both secrets stay live?

Schedule ordered webhook retries with a heap of subscription queues

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

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

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Keep the numeric type all the way through. quantity is numeric so the sums are exact; a cast to double precision anywhere in this pipeline reintroduces drift that surfaces only as a few unreconcilable cents per tenant per month, long after the query is out of anyone's mind.

Worked solution (40 min)

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

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

Verify it yourself

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

Follow-up

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

Enforce a concurrent-run quota that survives simultaneous requests

Medium · isolation levels · write skew · quotas · lock contention

A plan allows at most 20 concurrently running rows in job_run per tenant. The table holds run_id, tenant_id, workspace_id, status (queued, leased, running, succeeded, failed, timed_out, cancelled, lost), lease_token, leased_until, started_at and finished_at. Today the service runs select count(*) from job_run where tenant_id = $1 and status = 'running', compares the result to 20, then inserts. Under load a tenant exceeds the cap by exactly the number of concurrent requests. Name the anomaly, say which isolation levels do and do not prevent it, and give a version that holds, as SQL.

Approach

1. Name it: write skew. Each transaction reads a predicate (the count of running rows), neither modifies what the other read, and both then insert rows that jointly violate an invariant no single row expresses. Read committed permits it. So does repeatable read, because snapshot isolation's first-updater-wins check fires only on conflicting row updates, and these are inserts touching disjoint rows.
2. Enumerate the fixes with their real costs. SERIALIZABLE works: PostgreSQL's SSI tracks the predicate read and aborts one transaction with SQLSTATE 40001, which obliges the caller to retry and makes the abort rate rise with contention on a hot tenant. Folding the predicate into the write as insert ... select ... where (select count(*) ...) < 20 narrows the race to the statement's snapshot but does not close it under read committed.
3. Give the version that holds at read committed: serialise on a row both transactions must touch. update tenant_concurrency set running = running + 1 where tenant_id = $1 and running < 20 returning running updates zero rows when the cap is reached, and zero rows is the rejection. This works because at read committed a blocked UPDATE re-evaluates its WHERE clause against the newly committed row; at repeatable read the same statement raises a serialisation error instead, so the isolation level changes the calling contract.
4. State the cost you just bought. That row is now a per-tenant serialisation point, so admission throughput for the tenant is bounded by one divided by the lock hold time; at a 2 ms hold that is roughly 500 admissions/second. Keep the critical section to the single UPDATE, with no network call or scheduling decision inside the transaction, and decrement in the same transaction that writes the terminal status.
5. Close the leak the status enum implies: a run can end as lost, so a crashed worker otherwise consumes a slot forever. Reconcile on a schedule against status = 'running' and leased_until < now(), and treat the counter as a fast path over job_run, which stays the system of record.

Follow-up

• Write the retry loop for the SERIALIZABLE version. What does the caller see when it keeps aborting, and what bounds the retries?
• Two regions each keep a counter. What is the effective cap, and what does admission do when the counter store is unreachable?
• The cap changes mid-flight on a plan upgrade. Do running jobs get killed, and what does the counter row look like during the change?

These questions assess your foundational engineering knowledge and adaptability to specialized hardware or robotic environments.

Medium

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How would you design a testing framework for code that interacts with physical hardware?

Medium

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Walk me through a complex technical project you owned from inception to deployment.

Medium

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Specify webhook signature verification a customer can implement

Easy · webhooks · hmac · replay protection

The webhook-delivery service signs each payload before POSTing it to a customer endpoint. Write the signature specification a customer implements in their own language: the header format, exactly which bytes are signed, the algorithm, how replay is bounded, and how a signing secret rotates without a delivery gap. Then write the verification steps the customer performs, in order, including what they compare and what they return on failure. Constraint: most customers reach for their web framework's parsed JSON body by default. Deliverable: the spec section plus reference pseudocode.

Approach

1. Sign the concatenation of the timestamp and the raw body, t + "." + body, and emit a header of the form t=<unix seconds>,v1=<hex>. The timestamp has to be inside the MAC, or an attacker re-stamps a captured body and the tolerance window buys nothing.
2. Require the raw request bytes. A framework that parses JSON and re-serialises it changes key order, whitespace and number formatting, so the spec must tell the customer to capture the body before the parser runs and give the middleware note for each common framework.
3. Use HMAC-SHA256, not sha256(secret || body): SHA-256 is a Merkle-Damgard construction, so the naive form admits length extension. Require a constant-time comparison as well, since a short-circuiting byte compare leaks the expected prefix under repeated probing.
4. Bound replay in two layers: reject when |now - t| exceeds a stated tolerance such as 300 seconds, then deduplicate on the event identifier header. The tolerance is what makes the customer's dedup store finite rather than unbounded.
5. Rotate by allowing two live secrets and emitting both signatures in one header (v1=<old>,v1=<new>); the customer accepts if any candidate matches, so neither side needs an instantaneous cutover. A failed verification returns 400 and the body is not processed.

Worked solution (15 min)

1. Write the header grammar and one real example line with a plausible timestamp and hex digest.
2. Write the signed string construction explicitly as a byte concatenation, and add the sentence telling the customer where in their framework to obtain the raw body.
3. Write the five verification steps in order: extract t and candidates, check the tolerance, recompute the HMAC over t + '.' + raw body, compare in constant time against each candidate, then deduplicate on the event identifier.
4. Add the rotation paragraph: two active secrets, both signatures sent, overlap window stated in the dashboard.
5. State the failure response and the fact that the payload is not processed, plus what the sender does with that 400.

Expected result: A spec where the signed input is the timestamp joined to the exact raw bytes, the algorithm is HMAC-SHA256 compared in constant time, replay is bounded by a stated tolerance plus event-id deduplication, and rotation is an overlap of two accepted signatures rather than a cutover.

Verify it yourself

• The timestamp is inside the signed string, not merely sent alongside it.
• The spec names raw bytes and says where the customer gets them before parsing.
• Rotation requires no coordinated instant on either side.
• The reason for HMAC over sha256(secret || body) is stated as length extension, not as a preference.

Follow-up

• A customer's verification passes locally and fails in production behind a proxy that re-encodes the response body. Where do you look first?
• Why sign with a per-endpoint secret rather than the tenant's API key?

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

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

The estimate and the day you knew

A slipped date is only a bad story if you sat on it. What matters is what you believed when you gave the number, the signal that told you it was wrong, how many days passed before you said so, and what you cut rather than asking for more time. Scope you defended counts as much as scope you dropped.

How do you handle debugging issues in distributed or multi-threaded systems?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Discuss your experience with low-level systems programming or performance optimization.

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
2. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
3. Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

• What would you do differently if you ran that again?
• What did you decide not to do, and why?

Describe a time when a system failed in production and how you diagnosed and resolved it.

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
2. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
3. 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?