Dayward AI

Interview Bank

328 questions total; 1 shown with current filters.

Tag
362 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#chain-of-thought1#ci1#circuit-breaker1#claude-code1#cli-design1#client-integration1#cloud1#compliance1#compression1#configuration1#confused-deputy1#consistent-hashing1#content-hash1#content-safety1#context-assembly1#context-compression1#context-management1#copyright1#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#handoffs1#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#labeling1#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

From Frontend Engineer to Agent Engineer in 30 Days

D28 Mock Interview Day: One Full China-Domestic-Style and One Full Overseas-Style Round, Self-Assessment

  • How do domestic Chinese and overseas tech interview loops differ structurally, and how would you prepare for each?国内和海外技术面试的流程差异主要在哪里?你会怎么分别准备?
    Common in ChinaCommon overseasBasic#interview-process#career

    How to reason about it · think before answering

    1. This looks like trivia, but the discriminator is whether you actually rehearsed against a loop. Answering only 'overseas has behavioral, China has fundamentals drilling' sounds like hearsay.
    2. Lead with structure, because every other difference follows from it. A domestic loop is usually two or three rounds in a single day with the same people digging deeper each round, and one round of roughly 60 minutes splits into five segments: 3 minutes of self-introduction, 25 of project deep-dive, 20 of live coding, 10 of scenario and fundamentals, 5 of candidate questions. An overseas loop is five independent stages spread over weeks: a 30-minute recruiter screen, 60 minutes of technical/coding, 60 of system design, 45 of behavioral, then team match, each run by different people who score independently and vote at the end.
    3. Derive preparation from that structure, which is where the answer earns its keep. Same people digging deeper means the domestic loop is decided in that 25-minute deep-dive, so rehearse surviving three layers of follow-up. Independent stages plus a vote means any single overseas round can sink you, so weakest link beats strongest link, especially behavioral, which most engineers never rehearse.
    4. A third difference is how judgment is recorded: domestic outcomes lean on the interviewer's live impression, while most overseas companies use structured rubrics and written feedback. That makes behaviors which can be written down — narrating while coding, volunteering trade-offs and failure modes — worth more overseas.
    5. Correct a common misconception before they raise it: the difference is not that overseas skips algorithms. That 60-minute coding round is still an algorithm round; what changes is the explicit requirement to think out loud, where silence itself costs points.
    6. Expect the follow-up on time allocation: train the overlap first — project deep-dive and system design appear in both loops and give the best return — then specialize, adding two or three reusable STAR stories for overseas, or the habit of naming the edge of your knowledge for domestic rounds.

    分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

    1. 这题看着像常识题,区分度其实在于你有没有真的按流程准备过。只答「海外有 behavioral、国内有八股」是在复述听说,面试官听不出你排练过。
    2. 先给结构这条主线,其余差异都是它的推论:国内通常是一天之内两到三轮,同一批人越问越深,单轮 60 分钟出头切成五段——自我介绍 3 分钟、项目深挖 25 分钟、手撕代码 20 分钟、场景与八股 10 分钟、反问 5 分钟;海外是拉长到几周的五个独立环节——recruiter screen 30 分钟、technical/coding 60 分钟、system design 60 分钟、behavioral 45 分钟、team match,每一环由不同的人负责,各判各的,最后合票。
    3. 由结构推准备策略,这一步才是答案的价值所在:同一批人越问越深,意味着国内的胜负手在项目深挖那 25 分钟,要练的是被追问三层还答得上;独立环节合票意味着海外任何一轮都能单独把你否掉,所以短板比长板重要,尤其是多数人从没排练过的 behavioral。
    4. 第三条差异是评价载体:国内更依赖面试官当场的主观印象,海外多数公司有结构化的评分维度和书面反馈,所以「边写边讲」「主动说出取舍与失败模式」这类能被写进反馈的行为,在海外权重更高。
    5. 要主动澄清一个常见误区:差异不是「海外不考算法」。coding 那 60 分钟照样是算法题,区别在于它明确要求你全程出声,沉默本身就会被扣分。
    6. 可以预期的追问:那准备时间怎么分配?答共同部分先练——项目深挖和系统设计两套流程都要考,投入产出比最高;剩下的按目标市场补,投海外就补 2 到 3 个可复用的 STAR 故事,投国内就补知识的边界感(不知道就说不知道,再说出你会怎么查)。

    Key points

    • Structure is the through-line: domestic loops run two or three rounds in one day with the same panel going deeper; overseas loops are five independent stages over weeks, scored separately and voted on
    • Domestic segments and time boxes: 3 minutes intro, 25 project deep-dive, 20 live coding, 10 scenario and fundamentals, 5 candidate questions
    • Overseas stages: 30-minute recruiter screen, 60 coding, 60 system design, 45 behavioral, then team match
    • Preparation follows from structure: domestic means surviving three layers of follow-up; overseas means fixing your weakest round, especially two or three reusable STAR stories
    • Overseas relies on rubrics and written feedback, so narrating while coding and volunteering trade-offs count for more — but algorithms are still tested

    答题要点

    • 结构差异是主线:国内一天内两三轮、同一批人越问越深;海外五个独立环节跨几周,不同的人各判各的最后合票
    • 国内单轮的五段与时间盒:自我介绍 3 分钟、项目深挖 25 分钟、手撕代码 20 分钟、场景与八股 10 分钟、反问 5 分钟
    • 海外五轮:recruiter screen 30 分钟、coding 60 分钟、system design 60 分钟、behavioral 45 分钟、team match
    • 准备策略由结构推出:国内练被追问三层,海外补短板(尤其 behavioral 的 2 到 3 个可复用故事)
    • 海外更依赖结构化评分与书面反馈,所以边写边讲、主动说取舍这类可被记录的行为权重更高;但算法一样要考