Interview guides · Kiavi
Kiavi Software Engineer Interview Guide
Kiavi Software Engineer interview guide: reported rounds, questions and how candidates describe the process.
The 60-second brief
As a Software Engineer at Kiavi, your role is pivotal in shaping the technological backbone of one of the nation’s largest private lenders to residential real estate investors (REIs). You will be at the forefront of architecting and enhancing our complex loan origination platform, which directly impacts how customers access capital for their real estate ventures. The work you do will not only streamline processes but also improve customer satisfaction, making it easier for REIs to revitalize aged U.S. housing stock and provide move-in ready homes for millions. This role involves working collaboratively with cross-functional teams, including design and product, to build user-friendly and high-quality solutions. You will be responsible for maintaining a high quality of code through rigorous peer reviews and automated testing, ensuring that our technology remains reliable and efficient.
This guide is scoped to a Software Engineer candidate at Kiavi.
Focus areas
- Coding Interviews
- Data Structures
- Algorithms
The Kiavi interview process
Kiavi candidates report 3 rounds over 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.
Recruiter Phone Screen
Initial screening call with a recruiter to evaluate your background and fit for the role.
What to demonstrate
- Initial screening call with a recruiter to evaluate your background and fit for the role
- Depth in Coding Interviews
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
Interviews that assess your coding and problem-solving skills through challenges and behavioral questions.
What to demonstrate
- Interviews that assess your coding and problem-solving skills through challenges and behavioral questions
- Depth in Coding Interviews
How to prepare
- Answer aloud and timed: Describe a challenging technical problem you encountered and how you solved it.
- Answer aloud and timed: Design a loan origination system. What key components would you include?
Discussions with Team
In-depth discussions with engineering team members and leadership to showcase technical knowledge and previous projects.
What to demonstrate
- In-depth discussions with engineering team members and leadership to showcase technical knowledge and previous projects
- Depth in Coding Interviews
How to prepare
- Answer aloud and timed: How would you handle system failures and ensure reliability?
- Answer aloud and timed: Discuss your approach to reducing technical debt in an existing system.
Where candidates lose points
Know the Product
Familiarize yourself with Kiavi's services and how they impact real estate investors. Being able to discuss products can set you apart.
Practice Coding
Regularly solve coding challenges to sharpen your skills. Platforms like HackerRank and LeetCode are excellent resources.
Be Prepared for Behavioral Questions
Reflect on your past experiences and how they align with Kiavi's values. Use the STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result) to structure your responses.
Focus on Collaboration
Highlight examples from your past work that demonstrate your ability to work well in teams and resolve conflicts effectively.
Questions & practice
Write a function to find the longest substring without repeating characters.
Medium · Coding / Algorithms
Approach
- Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
- Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
- Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
- State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
Follow-up
- How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?
- What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
Given an array of integers, return indices of the two numbers such that they add up to a specific target.
Medium · Coding / Algorithms
Approach
- Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
- Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
- Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
- 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?
Explain your solution and the time complexity of the algorithm you implemented.
Medium · Coding / Algorithms
Approach
- Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
- Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
- Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
- 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?
Keep soft-deleted accounts from blocking re-registration
Easy · soft delete · unique constraints · engine differences
app_user holds user_id, tenant_id, email CITEXT, password_hash (NULL for SSO principals), email_verified_at, auth_version, status ('invited','active','suspended','deactivated'), created_at, updated_at, deleted_at. Two live accounts for one address inside a tenant must be impossible, but an address freed by a soft delete must be reusable, and the same tenant may delete and re-register it repeatedly. Write the uniqueness DDL for PostgreSQL 16, then the equivalent for MySQL 8 where partial indexes do not exist, and say what each permits once three deleted rows already hold that address.
Approach
- Start from what is actually unique: not (tenant_id, email), but (tenant_id, email) among live rows. PostgreSQL says that directly — CREATE UNIQUE INDEX app_user_live_email ON app_user (tenant_id, email) WHERE deleted_at IS NULL. A full constraint over the same two columns burns the address permanently the first time someone deletes an account.
- Keep case-insensitivity in the type or the index, never in the application: CITEXT as given, or UNIQUE (tenant_id, lower(email)) as an expression index where the extension is unavailable. A case-sensitive unique column is exactly how two accounts for one human appear.
- For MySQL 8 the predicate has to move inside the key: add a discriminator column that is a constant 0 while the row is live and is set to user_id on delete, with UNIQUE (tenant_id, email, deleted_marker). Live rows share the constant and still collide; deleted rows differ from each other and stop colliding.
- State the NULL variant and its dependency: leaving the marker NULL for deleted rows also works, because a unique index treats NULLs as distinct — true in MySQL, and true in PostgreSQL only under the default NULLS DISTINCT, which PostgreSQL 15 lets you reverse. Check the polarity against the three existing deleted rows: constant-on-live is what preserves the collision you want, and reversing it silently admits duplicate live accounts.
Follow-up
- A deleted account re-registers with the same address the next day. Do the old resource rows follow the new user_id, and how does the API keep the two principals apart?
- How do you honour an erasure request while resource_revision.actor_user_id still references this table?
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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
How do you ensure code quality in your projects?
Medium · Technical / Domain Questions
Approach
- Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
- State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
- Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
- Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Follow-up
- What assumption would you test first?
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
Can you explain the principles of object-oriented programming?
Medium · Technical / Domain Questions
Approach
- Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
- State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
- Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
- Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Follow-up
- What assumption would you test first?
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
Describe a challenging technical problem you encountered and how you solved it.
Medium · Technical / Domain Questions
Approach
- Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
- State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
- Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
- Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Follow-up
- What assumption would you test first?
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
Design a loan origination system. What key components would you include?
Medium · System Design / Architecture
Approach
- Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.
- Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
- Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
- State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.
Follow-up
- What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?
- How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?
How would you handle system failures and ensure reliability?
Medium · System Design / Architecture
Approach
- Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.
- Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
- Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
- State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.
Follow-up
- What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?
- How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?
Discuss your approach to reducing technical debt in an existing system.
Medium · System Design / Architecture
Approach
- Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.
- Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
- Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
- State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.
Follow-up
- What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?
- How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?
Given a set of requirements, how would you approach breaking down the project?
Medium · Problem-Solving / Case Studies
Approach
- Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
- State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
- Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
- Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Follow-up
- What assumption would you test first?
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
How would you optimize an existing application that is running slowly?
Medium · Problem-Solving / Case Studies
Approach
- Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
- State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
- Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
- Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Follow-up
- What assumption would you test first?
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
Discuss a project where you had to pivot your approach. What was the outcome?
Medium · Problem-Solving / Case Studies
Approach
- Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
- State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
- Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
- Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
Follow-up
- What assumption would you test first?
- How would you know your answer was wrong?
One customer endpoint stalls deliveries to every other destination
Medium · bulkhead · timeouts · saturation
The egress service delivers about 1.5k webhooks/second across 40,000 destinations, with a per-destination concurrency cap of 4 and a 10-second connect-plus-read timeout. Throughput falls to 300/second, queue depth climbs, and p99 delivery latency for unaffected destinations goes from 200 ms to minutes, while the error rate barely moves. One tenant holds 900 destination rows whose URLs share a hostname that now answers in 9.5 seconds. Explain the mechanism with the arithmetic, then give the containment in the order you would apply it.
Approach
- Look at saturation before errors. A flat error rate with collapsing throughput says nothing is failing, things are waiting, so the first signal to pull is in-flight request count or pool wait time rather than the error counter. This is the distinction that decides the whole investigation.
- Group in-flight work by resolved host, not by destination id. The cap is keyed per destination row, so 900 rows sharing one hostname buy 3,600 concurrent slots against a single host, each held for 9.5 seconds. The bulkhead was never a bulkhead for that host, and grouping by the wrong dimension is why the dashboard looked healthy.
- Do the arithmetic in both directions. Required concurrency is arrival rate times latency, so 1.5k/second at 200 ms needs about 300 in flight, which is entirely consumed by 3,600 slow slots; conversely whatever concurrency is left sustains rate equals concurrency divided by 9.5 seconds, which is the 300/second you are seeing. Matching both numbers is what promotes this from a plausible story to the mechanism.
- Explain why the circuit breaker never helped. It opens on consecutive failures, and a 9.5-second response inside a 10-second timeout is a success. Slow is not failing, so an error-rate breaker cannot see this; you need a slow-call ratio, a deadline propagated from the caller's remaining budget, or a concurrency limiter.
Follow-up
- The host recovers to 80 ms. How long does the queue take to drain, and what does the drain do to the recovered host?
- Where should the 10-second timeout number actually come from?
Suggested practice checklist
Built from the rounds and topics Kiavi candidates report.
Day 1 — Map the Kiavi loop
- Write out the reported sequence: Recruiter Phone Screen, Technical Interviews, Discussions with Team.
- 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 3 reported rounds, with the weakest marked.
Day 2 — Work Coding Interviews
- Spend the session on Coding Interviews, which Kiavi candidates report being tested on.
- Write one worked example in Coding Interviews and time yourself on it.
Deliverable: One timed worked example in Coding Interviews.
Day 3 — Work Data Structures
- Spend the session on Data Structures, which Kiavi candidates report being tested on.
- Write one worked example in Data Structures and time yourself on it.
Deliverable: One timed worked example in Data Structures.
Day 4 — Work Algorithms
- Spend the session on Algorithms, which Kiavi candidates report being tested on.
- Write one worked example in Algorithms and time yourself on it.
Deliverable: One timed worked example in Algorithms.
Day 5 — Answer out loud: Technical / Domain Questions
- Answer aloud, timed: How do you ensure code quality in your projects?
- Answer aloud, timed: Can you explain the principles of object-oriented programming?
Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Technical / Domain Questions question(s), under time.
Day 6 — Answer out loud: System Design / Architecture
- Answer aloud, timed: Design a loan origination system. What key components would you include?
- Answer aloud, timed: How would you handle system failures and ensure reliability?
Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported System Design / Architecture question(s), under time.
Day 7 — Answer out loud: Behavioral / Leadership
- Answer aloud, timed: Describe a time you worked with a difficult colleague. How did you handle it?
- Answer aloud, timed: How do you prioritize tasks when working on multiple projects?
Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Behavioral / Leadership question(s), under time.
Behavioural preparation
Behavioural rounds judge the decision you made and what it cost.
Describe a time you worked with a difficult colleague. How did you handle it?
Medium · Behavioral / Leadership
Approach
- Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
- Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
- 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 prioritize tasks when working on multiple projects?
Medium · Behavioral / Leadership
Approach
- Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
- Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
- 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 steps do you take to ensure effective communication within your team?
Medium · Behavioral / Leadership
Approach
- Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
- Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
- 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?