In-N-Out Burger Software Engineer Interview Guide

The 60-second brief

A Software Engineer at In-N-Out Burger operates at the unique intersection of high-volume retail operations and corporate infrastructure. You are responsible for building and maintaining the technical systems that keep one of the most iconic brands in the country running smoothly. Your work directly impacts how the business functions, from the technology powering the restaurants to the internal tools used at the corporate headquarters. This role requires a blend of technical proficiency and a deep appreciation for the In-N-Out Burger culture. Because the company values consistency and quality above all else, your engineering solutions must be robust, reliable, and designed to support a fast-paced environment. You will often collaborate across teams to troubleshoot network issues, optimize internal systems, and ensure that technology serves the operational needs of the organization.

This guide is scoped to a Software Engineer candidate at In-N-Out Burger.

Focus areas

• Networking Fundamentals
• Troubleshooting
• Network Troubleshooting (Diagnostics & Root Cause Analysis)

The In-N-Out Burger interview process

In-N-Out Burger candidates report 2 rounds over 2-4 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Initial Screening

Candidates undergo an initial screening with a recruiter to assess fit.

What to demonstrate

• Candidates undergo an initial screening with a recruiter to assess fit
• Depth in Networking Fundamentals

How to prepare

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

Technical Interviews

One or more technical interviews with management to verify technical competency.

What to demonstrate

• One or more technical interviews with management to verify technical competency
• Depth in Networking Fundamentals

How to prepare

• Answer aloud and timed: What programming languages are you most proficient in, and how have you applied them in past projects?
• Answer aloud and timed: How do you approach debugging a system when the root cause is not immediately apparent?

Where candidates lose points

Prepare your "Brand Story

Have a genuine, positive anecdote about your experience with In-N-Out Burger ready to share.

Own your follow-ups

If a scheduled call doesn't happen or you are waiting on feedback, send a polite, professional follow-up email. Persistence is often required.

Clarify the environment

When asked about troubleshooting, don't be afraid to ask for more context about the architecture or the specific vendors they use.

Focus on reliability

Emphasize your ability to work on long-term projects and your commitment to maintaining high-quality, stable code.

Questions & practice

How do you stay updated with the latest trends and changes in the technology industry?

Medium · Technical and Problem Solving

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

What programming languages are you most proficient in, and how have you applied them in past projects?

Medium · Technical and Problem Solving

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Collapse a redelivered event batch into per-aggregate high-water marks

Easy · hashing · at-least-once · aggregation

You drain a batch of up to 5,000,000 events, each (aggregate_id BIGINT, aggregate_version INT, event_type, payload). The log guarantees order within one aggregate only; the batch merges 64 partitions, and a relay failover has redelivered a range, so an older version for an aggregate can appear after a newer one. Given a map of last_applied_version per aggregate, produce the events worth applying, at most one per (aggregate_id, version), plus the count discarded. Target O(n) time. State the memory for 2,000,000 distinct aggregates and what you do when it does not fit.

Approach

1. One pass, one hash map from aggregate_id to the highest version kept, and a discard counter. An event whose version is at or below last_applied_version for its aggregate is dropped without further work, which is the whole reason the event carries its version rather than a delta. O(n) expected time, O(d) space in distinct aggregates.
2. Keep the maximum, never the last occurrence. The redelivered range means the final appearance of an aggregate in the batch can be an older version than one seen earlier in the same batch, so last-wins applies stale state over newer state and the projection regresses with no error anywhere.
3. Cost the memory instead of calling it large: an 8-byte key plus a 4-byte version is 12 bytes of payload, and an open-addressed table held at a 0.7 load factor costs roughly 17 bytes per entry before per-slot metadata, so 2,000,000 aggregates is tens of megabytes in a native layout and several times that in a runtime that boxes both key and value.
4. If the distinct set exceeds memory, partition on hash(aggregate_id) mod P and reduce each partition independently. Every event for one aggregate hashes to the same partition, so the per-partition result is exact and the merge is concatenation rather than a second reduction.

Follow-up

• The payload is a patch rather than a snapshot, so applying only the highest version loses the intermediate changes. What changes in your reduction?
• How do you detect that version 7 arrived while version 6 was never delivered, and what should the consumer do about the gap?

Hold a per-tenant active cap against concurrent creates

Hard · write skew · isolation levels · constraints

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

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Stop tag and share joins from fanning out a page

Medium · join fan-out · semi-joins · many-to-many

resource_tag is (resource_id, tag_id) with PK (resource_id, tag_id); resource_share is (resource_id, shared_with_user_id, permission). The tagged-and-shared listing inner-joins resource to both, filters tenant_id, tag_id = ANY($2) and shared_with_user_id = $3, orders by updated_at DESC and takes 50. Pages come back with fewer than 50 distinct resources and the total in the header is far too high. Explain the row multiplication, rewrite both the page query and the count query so each is correct, and name the index each one needs. PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

1. Do the arithmetic against the predicates that are actually there. An inner join emits one row per matching child row, and both joins are filtered: tag_id = ANY($2) admits only the requested tags, shared_with_user_id = $3 admits one user's share rows. So a resource holding three of the requested tags and shared with $3 once yields three rows, not one — the multiplier is its count of matching tags times its share rows for that single user, and that second factor is 1 unless the table admits duplicate (resource_id, shared_with_user_id) pairs. LIMIT 50 then limits rows rather than resources, and COUNT(*) counts pairs — the header is the product, not the population.
2. Reject DISTINCT as the fix. It deduplicates after the product has been built, so the planner must materialise and sort the fanned-out set before the LIMIT can apply, and it leaves any SUM or AVG in the same select list wrong.
3. Rewrite both filters as semi-joins, keeping resource as the only row source: AND EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM resource_tag rt WHERE rt.resource_id = r.resource_id AND rt.tag_id = ANY($2)) and the same shape against resource_share. A semi-join stops at the first match per resource and preserves the driving index order, so ORDER BY updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC LIMIT 50 still stops after 50 rows.
4. Count with the same predicates and no join at all: SELECT count(*) FROM resource r WHERE r.tenant_id = $1 AND r.status = 'active' AND EXISTS (...) AND EXISTS (...). Nothing multiplies a resource, so the number is the population.

Follow-up

• The filter changes from 'any of these tags' to 'all of these tags'. Rewrite it and state what it costs relative to the ANY form.
• A resource can be shared with the same user twice under different permissions. Does your count change, and should it?

Specify the outbound webhook contract a customer endpoint can verify

Medium · webhooks · hmac · at-least-once

Egress delivery sends resource.created, resource.updated and resource.archived to roughly 40k customer endpoints at about 1.5k deliveries/second, with a per-destination concurrency cap of 4 and a 10 second connect-plus-read timeout, at-least-once from the relay. The receiver is code you do not control, often behind a proxy that may re-encode JSON. Specify the payload envelope, how the receiver verifies authenticity and rejects replays, what ordering it may assume, how it deduplicates, which status codes it should return and what each means to us, and the retry, circuit and replay behaviour.

Approach

1. Send the fact, not a pointer: event_id, event_type, aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, occurred_at and the payload copied from outbox_event. A receiver told only that resource 42 changed has to call back, and the call back returns a newer state than the event describes - that is precisely how a consumer applies changes out of order while believing it is following them.
2. Sign the exact bytes on the wire: HMAC-SHA256 over the timestamp, a separator, and the raw body, in a header, compared in constant time before the body is parsed. Instruct receivers to verify the raw bytes, never a re-serialised copy, since a proxy that reorders keys or changes whitespace invalidates a signature computed over re-encoded JSON. Reject a timestamp outside a tolerance - five minutes is typical - and keep a short seen-set of event_ids, because a capture replayed inside the tolerance still verifies.
3. Support key rotation by sending several signature values in one header during the overlap window and publishing that any one that verifies is sufficient. Without that rule a key rotation is a synchronised outage across every destination at once.
4. State the guarantee as it actually is: at-least-once and unordered, including within a single aggregate_id. The outbox is ordered per aggregate at the source, but the relay holds up to 4 requests in flight per destination and backs off each retry independently, so a version 6 delivery that needs one retry lands after a version 7 that succeeded on its first attempt. Publishing per-aggregate ordering we do not enforce is worse than publishing none, because a receiver that trusts it overwrites new state with old. Receivers deduplicate on event_id and apply conditionally - UPDATE ... WHERE aggregate_version < :incoming, or the same comparison under a row lock on the aggregate - which discards stale redeliveries and stays correct when two deliveries for one aggregate are processed at the same time. A duplicate and an out-of-order delivery then have the same outcome: no-op.

Follow-up

• A customer insists an event never arrived. What do you check, in order, and which table settles the argument?
• A receiver cannot store a version and asks us to deliver their events in order. What would the relay have to give up to offer that, and what does one failing event then do to the rest of their stream?

Relay committed events to the log without gaps or reordering

Medium · transactional outbox · at-least-once · ordering

outbox_event rows are written in the same transaction as the state change and carry aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, payload and status, with a partial index on (created_at, event_id) WHERE status = 'pending'. The relay publishes about 4k events/second to a partitioned append-only log keyed by aggregate_id, with one leader per partition range holding a lease. Consumers must never miss an event; they may see one twice. Design the claim-publish-mark loop, and state exactly what consumers observe when a leader's lease expires while it is mid-batch.

Approach

1. Claim with SELECT ... WHERE status='pending' ORDER BY created_at, event_id LIMIT $batch FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED inside a transaction. SKIP LOCKED lets several relay workers share a range without serialising on each other's rows, and the partial index keeps the claim proportional to the backlog rather than to a table that is overwhelmingly published rows. At 4k/second a batch of 500 is eight claims per second, each an index scan of 500 entries.
2. Publish before marking, never the reverse, and say why it is a choice. Marking first loses the event outright if the process dies in the gap, and the loss is silent - nothing remains to retry, and it surfaces later as a projection missing a row. Publishing first can repeat the event, and repetition is what every consumer is already built to survive. That single ordering is the whole at-least-once guarantee.
3. Preserve the only ordering on offer. Partition by aggregate_id and never publish two events for one aggregate concurrently: claim in (created_at, event_id) order and publish sequentially within an aggregate, or hash aggregate_id to a worker slot. Order across aggregates is not available at any price here, which is why the event carries aggregate_version and the full fact rather than a delta - a consumer can then discard what it has already applied without coordinating with anyone.
4. State the failover behaviour precisely, because it is the consistency-versus-availability decision in this design. A lease expires because the holder is slow, and no mechanism distinguishes that from dead, so for the length of the lease window two leaders can publish the same claimed batch. The system accepts duplicates to avoid stalling publication for every aggregate in the range whenever one worker pauses. Consumers deduplicate on (aggregate_id, aggregate_version) and drop anything at or below what they have applied.

Follow-up

• The relay is down 40 minutes and 9.6 million rows are pending. What does catch-up do to the primary, and what changes in the claim loop to survive it?
• A consumer insists it never received an event. Which single query settles whether the relay lost it, and what does each answer look like?

Can you describe your process for troubleshooting a complex network problem?

Medium · Technical and Problem Solving

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How do you approach debugging a system when the root cause is not immediately apparent?

Medium · Technical and Problem Solving

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Suggested practice checklist

Built from the rounds and topics In-N-Out Burger candidates report.

Day 1 — Map the In-N-Out Burger loop

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

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

Day 2 — Work Networking Fundamentals

• Spend the session on Networking Fundamentals, which In-N-Out Burger candidates report being tested on.
• Write one worked example in Networking Fundamentals and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Networking Fundamentals.

Day 3 — Work Troubleshooting

• Spend the session on Troubleshooting, which In-N-Out Burger candidates report being tested on.
• Write one worked example in Troubleshooting and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Troubleshooting.

Day 4 — Work Network Troubleshooting (Diagnostics & Root Cause Analysis)

• Spend the session on Network Troubleshooting (Diagnostics & Root Cause Analysis), which In-N-Out Burger candidates report being tested on.
• Write one worked example in Network Troubleshooting (Diagnostics & Root Cause Analysis) and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Network Troubleshooting (Diagnostics & Root Cause Analysis).

Day 5 — Answer out loud: Technical and Problem Solving

• Answer aloud, timed: How do you stay updated with the latest trends and changes in the technology industry?
• Answer aloud, timed: Can you describe your process for troubleshooting a complex network problem?

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

Day 6 — Answer out loud: Behavioral and Culture Fit

• Answer aloud, timed: Why do you want to work for In-N-Out Burger specifically?
• Answer aloud, timed: Describe a time you had to work closely with another team to resolve a technical challenge. What was your contribution?

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

Day 7 — Dry run for In-N-Out Burger

• Run one full mock under time, then write down the two questions you most want to ask your interviewers.

Deliverable: A completed timed mock and two questions to ask.

Behavioural preparation

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

Why do you want to work for In-N-Out Burger specifically?

Medium · Behavioral and Culture Fit

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

Describe a time you had to work closely with another team to resolve a technical challenge. What was your cont

Medium · Behavioral and Culture Fit

Describe a time you had to work closely with another team to resolve a technical challenge. What was your contribution?

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

What can you contribute to our current team and its specific goals?

Medium · Behavioral and Culture Fit

Approach

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

Follow-up

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

How do you handle situations where you have to explain technical concepts to non-technical stakeholders?

Medium · Behavioral and Culture Fit

Approach

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

Follow-up

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