Dayward AI

Interview Bank

328 questions total; 1 shown with current filters.

Tag
359 more tags
#api-design9#coding-agent9#distributed-systems8#multi-agent8#rag8#chunking7#debugging7#pipeline-design7#structured-output7#agent-loop6#mcp6#operations6#prompt-injection6#sse6#tool-calling6#tool-design6#context5#context-engineering5#deployment5#embeddings5#hybrid-search5#message-bus5#scheduling5#system-prompt5#agentic-rag4#behavioral4#client4#concurrency4#consistency4#framework-design4#ingestion4#prompt-engineering4#rate-limiting4#retrieval4#routing4#trade-offs4#abstention3#agents-sdk3#caching3#communication3#context-window3#cost-control3#data-quality3#failure-modes3#image-generation3#interview-prep3#langgraph3#latency3#llm-as-judge3#llm-basics3#long-context3#model-migration3#model-routing3#orchestration3#ordering3#progressive-disclosure3#prompt-basics3#prompt-caching3#protocol3#provider-abstraction3#ranking3#recall3#redis-streams3#responses-api3#resume3#retry3#runtime3#scalability3#skills3#state-management3#statelessness3#subagents3#timeline3#versioning3#workflow-engine3#access-control2#agent-design2#async-task2#auth2#checkpointing2#citation-verification2#citations2#claude-md2#code-review2#compaction2#context-rot2#contextual-retrieval2#cost-tradeoff2#data-modeling2#database2#distribution2#fallback2#ffmpeg2#golden-set2#grounding2#interview-process2#long-term-memory2#media-pipeline2#memory2#multi-hop2#multi-tenancy2#oauth2#prioritization2#project-storytelling2#prompt-techniques2#query-rewriting2#react2#refusal2#reproducibility2#rerank2#retrieval-quality2#retrospective2#scripts2#sharding2#state-machine2#tool-permissions2#tooling2#tools2#tracing2#transport2#tts2#ux2#vector-database2#verification2#workflow2#agent-basics1#agent-quality1#agent-sdk1#agents-md1#altitude1#analytics1#approvals1#architecture-review1#async1#atomicity1#attention-budget1#av-sync1#backoff1#bi-encoder1#bm251#budget-control1#build-vs-buy1#cancellation1#candidate-selection1#capacity-planning1#career1#chain-of-thought1#ci1#circuit-breaker1#claude-code1#cli-design1#client-integration1#cloud1#compression1#configuration1#confused-deputy1#consistent-hashing1#content-hash1#content-safety1#context-assembly1#context-compression1#context-management1#coreference1#correctness1#cost-accounting1#cost-analysis1#cost-optimization1#cross-encoder1#cross-model1#customer-support1#dag1#decision-making1#decomposition1#degradation1#deliberate-practice1#design1#diagnostics1#dimensions1#docker1#documentation1#embedding-migration1#encoding1#engineering-judgement1#engineering-tradeoffs1#error-propagation1#escalation1#eval1#event-driven1#evidence1#failure-analysis1#fairness1#faithfulness1#fan-out1#feedback-loop1#fencing-token1#few-shot1#filter-pushdown1#filtering1#fine-tuning1#forking1#four-elements1#framework-selection1#frontend1#global-market1#graph-rag1#guardrails1#hallucination1#handoff1#headless1#hnsw1#hooks1#human-in-the-loop1#hybrid1#hyde1#incremental-recompute1#incremental-sync1#index-maintenance1#index-routing1#indexing1#information-retrieval1#instruction-hierarchy1#integration1#intent-routing1#interrupt-merge1#invalidation1#isolation1#iterative-scan1#ivfflat1#json-parsing1#json-schema1#just-in-time1#jwt1#knowledge-organization1#latency-budget1#lease1#least-privilege1#llm-output-quality1#long-session1#loop-guard1#maintenance1#mcp-basics1#mental-model1#messages-api1#metadata1#methodology1#metrics1#migration1#mobile1#model-selection1#moderation1#modularity1#multi-turn1#multimodal1#nodejs1#normalisation1#notifications1#ocr1#offline-testing1#openai1#overlap1#pagination1#parent-child1#pdf-parsing1#performance1#permissions1#persistence1#pgvector1#pipeline-reliability1#portfolio1#primitives1#priority-queue1#proactive-messaging1#product-engineering1#production-readiness1#prompt1#prompt-assembly1#prompt-bloat1#prompt-design1#prompt-limits1#prompt-surface1#prompt-template1#prompt-versioning1#prompting1#protocol-versions1#quality1#quality-check1#quantization1#query-transformation1#quiet-hours1#rag-basics1#rank-fusion1#reasoning1#reconnect1#redis1#reflection1#replay1#reporting1#retrieval-failure1#retrieval-metrics1#retry-semantics1#retry-strategy1#review1#risk-assessment1#rollback1#rollout1#rrf1#safety1#sampling1#sandbox1#sandboxing1#scaling1#schema-design1#schema-validation1#scoping1#secrets-management1#self-assessment1#self-introduction1#self-presentation1#self-reflection1#server-design1#service-architecture1#session-management1#sessions1#similarity1#skill-authoring1#skill-description1#skill-design1#spec1#split-brain1#stakeholder-communication1#star1#state-persistence1#stateless1#stdio-transport1#stopping-criteria1#storytelling1#subagent1#subscriptions1#subtitles1#task-graph1#team-governance1#test-set1#test-strategy1#testing1#thresholds1#timezone1#token-accounting1#token-budget1#tool-budget1#tool-execution1#tool-naming1#tool-schema1#trust-boundary1#tuning1#validation1#vector-index1#workflow-design1#xml-tags1#zero-downtime1

Mastering Codex and the OpenAI Agents SDK in 5 Days

D4 The OpenAI Agents SDK: Agents, Handoffs, Guardrails, Sessions, Tracing

  • When should you split one agent into several connected by handoffs, and when is a single agent with many tools the better design?什么时候该把一个 Agent 拆成多个、用 handoff 交接?什么时候「一个大 Agent 加很多工具」反而更好?
    Common in ChinaCommon overseasIntermediate#agents-sdk#handoffs#architecture

    How to reason about it · think before answering

    1. This tests your splitting criterion, not API fluency; 'split when there are many tools' is the common wrong answer.
    2. First separate handoffs from tools: a tool call fetches an answer and returns; a handoff transfers the whole conversation so the receiving agent owns it, even though it is implemented as a transfer_to_xxx tool.
    3. The criterion is whether instructions conflict: when two task groups need independent, clashing background, constraints and tone, one instruction block forces constant context switching, longer prompts and more errors, so split; many tools sharing one background do not justify a split.
    4. Name the costs: an extra model call for triage, possible misrouting, input guardrails only on the first agent, and history trimming across agents via inputFilter.
    5. Expect the follow-up: what if triage misroutes? Use RECOMMENDED_PROMPT_PREFIX, assert on lastAgent in regression tests, inspect the handoff turn in tracing, and allow experts to hand back.

    分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

    1. 这题考的是拆分判据,不是会不会用 API。答「工具多了就拆」是最常见的错误,工具数量不是判据。
    2. 先说清 handoff 与工具的区别:调工具是替你去问一句再回来,handoff 是把对话整个交给另一个 Agent,之后由它负责;实现上 handoff 也是一个名为 transfer_to_xxx 的工具,但语义是转移控制权。
    3. 判据是「指令会不会互相打架」:两组任务需要的背景知识、约束、语气彼此独立且冲突时,塞进一份 instructions 会让模型反复切换上下文、提示越长越贵、出错率上升,这时拆;工具虽多但共享同一套背景的,不拆。
    4. 补拆分的代价:多一次模型调用(分诊那一跳)、路由可能错、输入护栏只在第一个 Agent 上跑、跨 Agent 的历史要靠 inputFilter 裁剪。
    5. 可预期的追问:分诊错了怎么办?用 RECOMMENDED_PROMPT_PREFIX 提高交接准确率,用 lastAgent 做回归断言,用 tracing 看交接发生在哪一轮,必要时让专家 Agent 也能交接回分诊台。

    Key points

    • A handoff transfers conversational control; a tool call only fetches a result
    • Split on conflicting instructions, not on tool count
    • Costs: an extra hop, possible misrouting, input guardrails only on the first agent
    • Control routing quality with the recommended prefix, lastAgent assertions and tracing

    答题要点

    • handoff 转移的是对话控制权,工具调用只是取一次结果
    • 拆分判据是指令是否互相打架,不是工具数量
    • 拆的代价:多一跳、可能路由错、输入护栏只在第一个 Agent 生效
    • 用前缀提示、lastAgent 断言与 tracing 控制路由质量