Geico Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The 60-second brief

This guide covers what a Software Engineer at Geico is expected to do and how to prepare for the interview.

Ask how many rounds there are and what each one is before you plan your weeks, because the composition is what your hours should follow. A loop with three coding rounds and one short design conversation deserves a different split from the reverse, and whoever schedules it will usually say plainly which it is.

Focus areas

• Scope every query and cache key by tenant
• Keep money in integer minor units
• Build at-least-once pipelines with explicit deduplication horizons

The Geico interview process

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

Initial Screening

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

Technical Assessments

What this round decides is narrow: whether you can produce code that runs and is correct on inputs nobody showed you. An elegant solution that does not compile scores below a plain one that does, so write a correct brute force first, say out loud that you know its cost, and improve it with the working version still on screen. What separates strong answers is who finds the broken case. Trace your own code against an empty input, a single element, and duplicate keys before you say you are finished, because being told is far more expensive than noticing.

What to demonstrate

• Whether degenerate inputs get checked without being asked for: an empty collection, one element, every element equal, and the extreme value the input type allows
• Whether the complexity you state matches the code you actually wrote, including a sort or a copy sitting inside a loop
• Whether the finished answer is verified against the worked examples before you call it done, rather than assumed correct because the code reads correctly

How to prepare

• Take five problems you have already solved and, without running anything, write down what each returns for empty input, a single element, and all-duplicates. Then run them and count how many you predicted wrong.
• Drill the brute force as its own skill: on ten problems, write only the obviously-correct slow version and time how long it takes to get it passing. If that is more than a few minutes, that is what to practise, not the optimal version.
• Add a fixed last step before you submit anything, reading only the loop bounds and the initial value of each accumulator, which is where most off-by-one errors live

Behavioral Interviews

Your first answer is not really what is scored. It buys the follow-up questions, and those decide the round. An interviewer with fifteen minutes takes one thread and pushes on it four or five times, so a story you can only tell at a single level of detail collapses under the third why. That is an argument for fewer stories known deeply rather than one prepared per prompt. Four or five pieces of work you can still explain down to the code you changed and the argument you had about it will cover nearly anything asked in this round.

What to demonstrate

• Whether a story holds as the questioning moves from what you did to why that instead of the alternative, and then to what you would change knowing what you know now
• Whether you can re-cut a project to answer the question actually asked rather than delivering a rehearsed block that answers an adjacent one
• Whether your level of detail is chosen rather than habitual: going down to the schema when the question is about the data model, staying out of it when the question is about the person who disagreed with you

How to prepare

• Pick four projects and write the chain out four levels deep for each: what you did, why that, why not the alternative, and what would have to be true for the alternative to have won. Where you cannot reach the fourth level, you have a placeholder rather than a story
• Have someone ask why three times in a row on a single thread with nothing else added, and mark the point where you start repeating a sentence you already said. That point is where the interviewer stops learning anything
• Build a one-page index instead of an answer bank: the common prompts in this round (disagreement, a failure that was yours, thin requirements, a deadline you missed, work you inherited) mapped to which of your four projects you would use for each, so the choosing is done now rather than while an interviewer waits

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.

Serialising a tenant's writes through select ... for update on a single counter row

It is the first change that makes a counter correct, and it caps that tenant's write throughput at roughly one divided by the lock hold time. A transaction that takes the lock, makes a network call and then commits holds it for the entire round trip: at 2 ms that is about 500 writes per second for the whole tenant, and the largest tenants are exactly the ones that exceed it. The damage then spreads, because every waiter holds a database connection while it queues, so one hot tenant drains the shared pool and the symptom presents as a site-wide latency incident rather than as a lock problem. The repairs are to shrink the critical section to a single statement, to shard the counter into per-(tenant, hour) or per-(tenant, bucket) rows and sum on read, or to batch in memory and flush periodically while accepting the bounded loss that batching implies.

Designing for a scale nobody asked for

Ask for request rate, data size, read-to-write ratio and expected growth, then size the simplest option first; one relational instance on current hardware covers a large share of real workloads. Reaching for shards, queues and a cache tier before any number has been quoted reads as pattern-matching rather than judgement.

Quoting amortised or average cost as if it were a worst-case guarantee

Appending to a dynamic array is amortised O(1), but the append that triggers a resize copies every element, and hash lookup is constant only while the hash spreads the actual keys. Say which guarantee you are offering when the caller cares about the latency of one call rather than the total over many.

Questions & practice

Given an integer n, write a function that returns a string containing exactly n characters consisting of the letter 'a'.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

1. Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
2. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
3. Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.

Follow-up

• What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
• How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

Given an array of integers representing section heights, determine the minimum number of operations required to balance adjacent section heights evenly.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

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

Follow-up

• What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
• How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

Given a 2D grid where each cell contains point values, calculate the maximum points achievable starting from any cell without stepping on zero-value cells or revisiting cells.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

1. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
2. Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
3. Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.

Follow-up

• What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
• How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

Implement a simulation for a cleaning robot moving through a grid, where it turns clockwise upon hitting an obstacle or wall; calculate the total unique area cleaned.

Medium · data structures and algorithms

Approach

1. Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
2. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
3. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.

Follow-up

• What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
• How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

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?

Decide which facts an invoice line copies instead of joining

Medium · denormalisation · immutable records · foreign keys · rounding

invoice_line_item already denormalises tenant_id, which is reachable through invoice_id, and stores amount_minor even though quantity times unit_price_micros would recompute it. A reviewer asks you to normalise both away, and separately asks whether the tenant's legal name and billing address should be copied onto the invoice header. Decide each case. For every field you keep denormalised, name the read pattern or the invariant that justifies it, the anomaly the copy can develop, and the mechanism that prevents that anomaly here.

Approach

1. Split the question into two kinds of copy, because they fail differently. A copy of a currently mutable fact is a cache: it drifts and needs invalidation. A copy of a fact frozen at write time is not a cache at all, it is the record of what happened, and normalising it away destroys information the source no longer holds.
2. Keep tenant_id on the line. It costs 8 bytes, it leads every index on the table so no read is ever accidentally cross-tenant, and it turns a wrong join into an empty result rather than another tenant's money. Prevent the drift structurally: a unique constraint on invoice (invoice_id, tenant_id) plus a composite foreign key from the line on (invoice_id, tenant_id) makes a mismatched pair impossible, so the database enforces agreement instead of a code review.
3. Keep amount_minor. Rounding must happen exactly once, at a named site, with a stated mode (half-even here). If readers recompute from quantity and unit_price_micros, every reader owns a rounding decision, and half-up and half-even diverge systematically across thousands of lines rather than cancelling out. A check constraint can bound the stored value but deliberately cannot re-derive it.
4. Copy the legal name and billing address onto the invoice header, written once and never updated. The statement must show what was true when it was sealed, and the tenant record will change afterwards. This is a snapshot for the same reason source_rollup_watermark is stored per line: without it, nobody can reconstruct what the customer was told.
5. Name the read pattern that pays for all of it. Rendering, dispute response and export are per-tenant, per-period reads over thousands of lines that would otherwise join back to slowly changing dimensions that no longer hold the historical value. The write side is a once-per-period batch, so the extra columns cost nothing that matters.
6. Concede the case where the reviewer is right: a mutable operational attribute such as the tenant's current plan name has no business on a line. If a report wants it, join. If a statement needs the plan as of the period, that is another snapshot and it belongs on the header with the rest.

Follow-up

• Write the composite foreign key and the unique constraint it requires on the parent. What does it cost on every line insert, and what does it do to a bulk load?
• A tenant is renamed after being invoiced. Which rows change, and what does the customer see on last quarter's PDF?
• Where does currency live, and what breaks if a tenant's billing currency changes between two periods?

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.

Worked solution (25 min)

1. Seed a tenant with 19 running rows, then fire 8 concurrent sessions each running the select-then-insert, and count the resulting running rows.
2. Repeat at REPEATABLE READ and confirm the count still exceeds 20.
3. Repeat at SERIALIZABLE, count the 40001 aborts, and note that without a retry loop those requests fail rather than queue.
4. Implement the atomic counter UPDATE, re-run the 8-way test, and confirm exactly 20 running rows with zero over-admissions.
5. Kill a worker mid-run, let the lease expire, and check whether the slot comes back without intervention.

Expected result: Write skew identified; read committed and repeatable read both permit it; serialisable prevents it at the price of 40001 retries; the working read-committed version is update tenant_concurrency set running = running + 1 where tenant_id = $1 and running < 20 returning running, whose zero-row result is the rejection, plus a reconciliation path for runs that terminate as 'lost'.

Verify it yourself

• At 8x concurrency against a cap of 20, running rows never exceed 20.
• The rejection returns zero rows rather than raising, so it is distinguishable from an error in the caller.
• Killing a worker does not permanently consume a slot.
• The counter and select count(*) from job_run where status = 'running' agree after reconciliation.

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?

Design a task management system similar to Jira, addressing task assignment, status workflows, data persistence, and real-time notifications.

Medium · system design and architecture

Approach

1. Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
2. Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
3. Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.

Follow-up

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

Explain blue-green and canary deployment strategies and how you implement zero-downtime deployments for critical services.

Medium · system design and architecture

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Authorisation cache with a bounded revocation window

Hard · caching · invalidation · availability · authz

The edge gateway serves about 30k requests/second from roughly 120 pods across three regions and may add no more than 10 ms at p99. Each request presents an API key that must resolve to an authorisation context: tenant, workspace, scopes, entitlements and credential version. The control plane that owns those rows takes tens of writes/second. A revoked credential must stop authorising within a bound you state as a number. Design the cache - what is keyed, what invalidates it, how many tiers - and specify what the gateway does for the duration of a control-plane outage.

Approach

1. Fix the entry shape before the topology: key on SHA-256 of the presented secret, value is the resolved context plus the principal's auth_version and a fetched_at. Cache negative lookups too, with a much shorter TTL and a bounded-size structure, because otherwise every sprayed invalid key is a control-plane round trip, and unbounded negative entries let a sprayer evict live ones.
2. Compute the control-plane read load before choosing a TTL, and notice the multiplier is pods, not regions, when the cache is in-process: distinct_active_keys x pods / TTL. At 50,000 active credentials, 120 pods and a 60 s TTL that is 100,000 reads/second against a single-writer primary with read replicas, which is not serviceable - so the design needs two tiers, a per-region shared cache in front of the control plane with the in-process cache held to a few seconds.
3. State the bound as the sum of the tiers, not as a hope: with a 10 s in-process TTL over a 60 s regional TTL, worst-case staleness absent any invalidation message is 70 s, because an in-process entry can be filled from a regional entry that was itself about to expire. Publish-subscribe invalidation on every credential and entitlement mutation makes the typical case sub-second, but it is lossy under partition, so the TTL is the only enforced bound and both tiers must subscribe.
4. Make auth_version propagate through the same path: a password reset or sign-out-everywhere bumps the principal and revokes its keys with no hook of its own, so the invalidation publisher has to expand principal -> credentials and publish per key, or the cache keeps serving keys whose auth_version no longer matches.
5. Decide the partition behaviour in advance and write it as two rules: on a cache hit past TTL, serve from the stale entry up to a grace ceiling (say 10 minutes); on a cache miss, refuse, because authorising something never seen converts a control-plane outage into an authorisation bypass. Worst-case revoked-key lifetime during an outage is then TTL + grace, about 11 minutes, and that number is the price of not turning a control-plane outage into a total data-plane outage.
6. Protect the refill path: per-key single-flight so a mass invalidation or a cold pod does not stampede the control plane, TTL jitter so entries created together do not expire together, and a small separately replicated deny-list for compromised keys that is consulted on the hot path and survives control-plane loss.

Worked solution (35 min)

1. Write the cache entry shape - key, value fields, and which of those fields a request actually reads on the hot path - and mark which field makes a password reset propagate.
2. Compute control-plane reads/second for TTLs of 10 s, 60 s and 300 s using distinct_keys x cache_instances / TTL, once with cache_instances = 3 regions and once with cache_instances = 120 pods, and note which of the two the in-process design actually implies.
3. Enumerate the four states a revocation can be in - published and received, published and dropped, control plane unreachable, pod started after the publish - and write which entry serves the next request in each.
4. Write the outage policy as two rules (hit past TTL within grace: serve; miss: refuse) and compute worst-case revoked-key lifetime as the sum of both tier TTLs plus the grace.

Expected result: A two-tier design with a single stated number: roughly 10 s in-process over 60 s regional, so about 70 s worst-case staleness without invalidation and typically under a second with it, plus a 10-minute stale-serve grace giving about 11 minutes worst case during a control-plane outage; fail-open on a warm hit, fail-closed on a miss; a separately replicated deny-list for compromised keys; per-key single-flight and TTL jitter on the refill path.

Verify it yourself

• Recompute the read load with pods rather than regions as the multiplier. If the number exceeds what read replicas can serve, a single in-process tier is not a viable design and you need a shared tier, a longer TTL, or routing that gives each pod a slice of the key space.
• Trace a password reset end to end. If your invalidation publishes only on credential rows, the reset revokes nothing and the auth_version field in the cache entry is decorative.
• State the outage behaviour as a decision already made rather than as an alert. If the answer is a human paging someone, the availability target for the control plane has not actually been set.

Follow-up

• A key is found in a public repository and must stop working in seconds, not minutes. What changes, and what does it cost on the request path?
• One region is partitioned from the control plane while the control plane itself is healthy. What do that region's pods do, and how do you distinguish this from a control-plane outage?
• How would you measure the actual revocation bound in production rather than asserting it from the configuration?

Gateway p99 spikes on a five-minute cadence

Medium · cache stampede · ttl · invalidation

edge-gateway caches each credential-to-authorisation-context decision for five minutes. p99 sits at 6 ms except for a spike to 900 ms roughly every five minutes, worst in the region with the most pods, and control-plane CPU and read latency rise in step with it. The error rate stays near zero. Customers are told a revoked credential stops authorising within 60 seconds. Give the ordered checklist that identifies the mechanism, and a fix that removes the spike without weakening the 60-second bound.

Approach

1. Test periodicity before anything else: take the spike timestamps modulo the TTL in seconds. A tight cluster at a fixed offset means expiry phase, while traffic-driven spikes scatter.
2. Overlay pod start times. Entries filled at first request inherit the phase of the pod that filled them, so a cohort of pods deployed together expires together and the amplitude should track cohort size rather than tenant count.
3. Separate a herd from a capacity shortfall by measuring control-plane requests per second during a spike against baseline. A stampede shows a step of roughly (pods x hot keys) for one interval with hit rate collapsing to near zero, not a gradual climb that would indicate the dependency is simply undersized.
4. Apply three independent controls: randomise each key's TTL by a factor drawn uniformly from something like 0.8 to 1.0 so cohorts de-phase; coalesce concurrent misses per key per pod so exactly one refresh is in flight; and serve the stale value while that refresh runs so a miss costs the stale read rather than the dependency's queue.
5. Bound staleness against the published contract rather than against comfort: serve-stale is admissible only up to the 60-second revocation bound, so the TTL floor and the stale window together must stay inside it, and the published invalidation must delete the entry rather than schedule a refresh.
6. Decide in advance what a miss does when the control plane is unreachable, because that is now the only uncached path: failing closed converts a dependency outage into a total outage, while extending stale service past the bound breaks the revocation promise. Pick one and configure it explicitly.

Follow-up

• Publish-subscribe invalidation is lossy under a partition. Given that, what actually enforces the 60-second bound, and what number would you put in the contract if asked to defend it?
• One tenant's key is hot enough that a single pod's coalesced refresh still matters. What changes?
• Would a shared cache tier in front of the control plane help or shift the problem, and what new failure does it add?

Suggested practice checklist

Roughly ninety minutes on weeknights with one longer weekend block. The plan cuts scope rather than compressing everything, on the assumption that one thing finished per night beats four half-started.

Day 1 — Fix the scope and take a cold baseline

• Read the role description and write the three things the loop will almost certainly test, then write an explicit not-doing list and keep it visible all week.
• Take one twenty-five-minute coding problem and one fifteen-minute design prompt cold, and write the single sentence naming what blocked each, because those two sentences decide where the remaining evenings go.
• Set the week's rule: one thing finished every night, including the night you only have forty minutes.

Deliverable: A one-page scope with a not-doing list and two cold attempts, each carrying one sentence on what blocked it.

Day 2 — One pattern, written three times from blank

• Choose the single pattern most likely to appear in your loop and write it three times from an empty file rather than editing the previous attempt.
• On the third pass, write the invariant as a comment before the loop body and the complexity before the first line of code.
• Stop at ninety minutes even if the third version is imperfect, and write the one thing you would fix given another hour.

Deliverable: Three independent implementations of the same pattern plus a note on what changed between them.

Day 3 — One design, only to the depth you can defend

• Take one system shape and go only as far as requirements, interface and data model, refusing to draw a box you could not survive a follow-up about.
• Attach one number to each non-functional requirement, deriving it rather than asserting it, and write the assumption the number rests on.
• Write the one tradeoff you are choosing against and the observation that would make you reverse it.

Deliverable: One design at interface-and-schema depth with derived numbers and one written reversible tradeoff.

Day 4 — Only the fundamentals you will have to defend

• Write, in under two hundred words each, the answers to the two questions that follow almost any implementation: why this structure and not the obvious alternative, and what happens to this code at a hundred times the input.
• Write what an index actually costs: faster lookups on the indexed columns against a write that now maintains a second structure, plus the cases where the planner declines to use it anyway, low selectivity, or a predicate wrapping the column in a function.
• Delete any answer you cannot deliver aloud in under a minute, since an answer that needs reading is not an answer you have.

Deliverable: Three written answers, each under two hundred words and each timed aloud.

Day 5 — Your own work, timed

• Write a ninety-second and a four-minute version of your main project and time both aloud rather than reading them.
• Prepare the two follow-ups that always come: what you would do differently, and how you knew it worked.
• Put one number in the first sentence and be ready to say exactly where it came from and what it excludes.

Deliverable: Two timed narratives with one defensible number in the opening line.

Day 6 — The one full rehearsal, in the weekend block

• Run a sixty-minute mock covering a coding round and a design round in one sitting with no break, because sustained attention is the thing evenings have not trained.
• Immediately afterwards, and before hearing any feedback, write the three moments you lost the thread.
• Spend the rest of the block only on those three moments, and on nothing you merely feel shaky about.

Deliverable: Mock notes naming three failure moments with a specific fix written under each.

Day 7 — Taper

• Write the twenty-minute warm-up you will actually do on the morning: one problem you can already solve from a blank file, one design you can narrate, and nothing you have never seen.
• Re-read only your own notes from this week and open no new material.
• Write the logistics down: the editor or shared document you will be working in, whether execution and lookups are permitted, and the sentence you will use when you do not know something.

Deliverable: A one-page card holding the design structure, the project numbers, and the logistics.

Outage answers are graded on instruments

Nobody is scoring your stamina at three in the morning. What carries weight is which signal told you something was wrong, what you measured before touching anything, what you rolled back versus what you fixed forward, and why you picked one. 'We restarted it and it went away' is a story about not knowing.

Why do you want to work at GEICO, and how do your technical career goals align with our digital transformation initiatives?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

1. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
2. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
3. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.

Follow-up

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

Describe a situation where your initial technical design failed or hit an unexpected corner case in production. How did you remediate it?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Unblock an engineer on a job run that finished twice

Easy · mentoring · fencing tokens · lease expiry · debugging method

An engineer two weeks into the team brings you a job_run row showing status succeeded with an exit_code written by a worker declared dead ten minutes earlier; the retry attempt also shows succeeded. They have spent a day adding logging and are no closer. You have twenty minutes and you do not want to take the keyboard. Describe how you unblock someone: the question you ask first, what you let them find themselves, the concept you name and when, and how you check the next day that they own the fix rather than having watched you produce it.

Approach

1. Ask what they expect rather than what they see: which statement set status to succeeded, and what did it check before writing? That question points directly at the update's WHERE clause, which is where the answer lives, and it costs them nothing to answer, so it does not read as a test.
2. Let them build the timeline themselves from the row: queued_at, started_at, leased_until, finished_at and worker_id, on both the original run and the retry. Two different worker_ids with a lease expiry between them tells the whole story, and they will see it before you say it.
3. Name the concept once the evidence has earned it. A lease bounds time; it does not prevent a write. The store has to reject a stale writer, which means the update carries a fencing token the row compares — update job_run set status = 'succeeded' where run_id = $1 and lease_token = $2 and status = 'running' — and a long garbage-collection pause or a brief partition is enough to produce what they are looking at.
4. Point at the second, less obvious half and let them decide it: 'lost' exists in the status enum precisely so a run whose worker vanished is not recorded as failed, because failed asserts an outcome nobody observed and the system then bills and retries on that assertion. Ask them what these two rows should have said.
5. Leave them with the next step rather than the patch — a test that kills the first worker after the sandbox exits and before the row is written — and say when you are available again, so the offer is real rather than polite.
6. Check ownership the next day by what they produced, not by asking if it went well: a test that reproduces the window proves they understood it; a test that only asserts the new WHERE clause proves they copied it. Ask them to explain it to a third person and listen for whether the explanation is theirs.

Follow-up

• They propose a longer lease instead of a token. What do you say, and what breaks when legitimate runs last thirty minutes?
• How can you tell whether your explanation landed or they simply deferred to you?
• The same engineer hits a variant of this next month. What did you fail to teach the first time?