Interview Bank
328 questions total; 1 shown with current filters.
CourseAllFrom Frontend Engineer to Agent Engineer in 30 DaysPrompt Engineering From Scratch in 5 DaysMastering Claude: From Conversation to Claude Code in 5 DaysMastering Codex and the OpenAI Agents SDK in 5 DaysMCP in 7 Days: Wire Tools Into Any AgentAgent Skills in 7 Days: Turn Experience Into Reusable CapabilityContext Engineering in 5 DaysRAG in 14 Days: From Retrieval to Trustworthy AnswersBuild an AI Short-Drama Production Pipeline With Agents in 14 Days
Mastering Codex and the OpenAI Agents SDK in 5 Days
D5 Choosing and Combining Claude and Codex: A Real Side-by-Side on the Same Task, a Write-One-Review-One Mixed Workflow
Your team must pick between two coding agents. How do you propose a comparison that teammates can both understand and verify?团队要在两家 coding agent 之间选一个,你怎么给出一套可以向团队解释、也能被验证的对比维度?
Common in ChinaCommon overseasIntermediate#coding-agent#evaluation#decision-makingHow to reason about it · think before answering
- This tests methodology, not a verdict; leading with 'I prefer X' signals weak engineering judgment. Show how you make the comparison reproducible.
- Give the dimensions: instruction effort (prompt and instruction-file size), approvals (how many interruptions and why), verification (does it run tests unprompted, what happens on red), cost (time, tokens, money). All are measurable in your own repo.
- State the preconditions for comparability: same starting commit, identical requirement text, identical instruction-file content, default permissions, and 'run tests before reporting' on both sides.
- Then the reading order: check comparability, then structural differences (permission model, placement and wording of rules), and only then capability differences, which need several runs and a median.
- For the team: label every differing row as 'workflow' or 'capability'; workflow gaps are closed by configuration, capability gaps drive the choice.
- Expect the follow-up: why not benchmarks? They score standard problems with one number, while teams change legacy repos and care about four dimensions.
分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答
- 这题考的是方法论而不是结论。上来就说「我觉得 X 好」会被判为没有工程判断;面试官想听的是你怎么让比较可复现。
- 先给维度:交代(写多少需求、准备多少说明文件)、审批(中断几次、为了什么)、验证(是否主动跑测试、红了怎么办)、成本(时间、token、钱)。这四项都能在自己的仓库里量出来。
- 再给可比性的前置条件:同一个起点 commit、同一段需求文字、说明文件同内容、默认权限、都要求跑完测试再汇报;有一项不同,差异就说不清来源。
- 然后是读数的顺序:先查可比性,再看结构性差异(权限模型、说明文件的位置与措辞导致的行为差别),最后才看能力差异,而且能力差异要多次运行取中位数。
- 落到团队沟通:报告里每一行差异都标「来自工作方式还是能力」,工作方式的差异靠配置弥补,能力差异才影响选型。
- 可预期的追问:榜单为什么不够?榜单测标准题,团队干的是有历史包袱的仓库里的改动,且榜单只给一个分数、不给四个维度。
Key points
- Four measurable dimensions: instruction effort, approvals, verification, cost, all measured in your own repo
- Comparability first: same commit, same prompt, same instruction file, default permissions, tests required
- Read in order: comparability, structural differences, then capability, with medians over several runs
- Label each gap as workflow or capability; only capability gaps should drive the decision
答题要点
- 四个可量维度:交代、审批、验证、成本,全部在自己仓库里测
- 可比性前置:同起点、同需求、同说明文件、默认权限、都要求跑测试
- 读数顺序:可比性、结构性差异、能力差异;能力差异要多次运行取中位数
- 每行差异标「工作方式还是能力」,前者靠配置弥补,后者才决定选型