Dayward AI

Interview Bank

328 questions total; 2 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#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#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

D26 System Design Deep Dive: Agent Platforms / Customer-Support Agents / Multi-Tenancy / Cost Control

  • You get 35 to 40 minutes for a system design round. How do you budget that time, and why is drawing the architecture not step one?系统设计环节只有 35 到 40 分钟,你会怎么分配时间?为什么第一步不是画架构图?
    Common in ChinaCommon overseasBasic#system-design#interview-process

    How to reason about it · think before answering

    1. This question tests pacing, not knowledge. Interviewers ask it because the previous candidate spent 25 minutes on the architecture diagram and left five each for deep dives and trade-offs — which is exactly where the rubric puts most of the weight.
    2. Give the structure with explicit time boxes: 5 minutes clarifying requirements, 3 minutes on capacity and cost estimation, 8 minutes sketching the architecture, 15 minutes going deep on two or three areas, 5 minutes on trade-offs. Naming actual minute counts is itself worth points, because it shows you have rehearsed against a clock.
    3. Then answer the 'why not draw first' half head on: a one-line prompt leaves five things unknown — daily actives, latency budget, cost budget, multi-tenancy, and failure tolerance — and every one of them changes the architecture materially. Drawing first means at best you guessed right, at worst the interviewer realises twenty minutes in that you solved a different problem. An analogy lands it: the client said 'we need an office building' and you unrolled construction drawings before hearing whether the budget is twenty million or two hundred million.
    4. Add the situation that comes up almost every time: you start asking and the interviewer says 'just assume something'. That is not permission to skip clarification, it is an invitation to state a number and its justification. The right reply is 'then I will assume 10k daily actives at five turns each, and I will flag in the final step what changes at 100k'. You keep the pacing and turn the assumption into a traceable premise.
    5. Close by explaining how step four is prepared: those 15 minutes cannot be improvised. Have three deep-dive packages ready — state and ordering, cost and rate limiting, failure and retry — so any pick is covered. Saying you prepared three directions signals rehearsal better than winging one.
    6. Expect the follow-up: what if you run out of time? Cut step three, never step five. An unfinished sketch can be closed with 'the rest follows the standard pattern, happy to come back to it', but dropping the trade-off section makes you indistinguishable from someone who memorised an architecture.

    分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

    1. 这题考的不是知识,是节奏感。面试官问它,通常是因为上一位候选人在架构图上讲了 25 分钟,深入和权衡各剩五分钟——而评分表上分数最重的恰恰是后两步。
    2. 先给结构,五步加时间盒:需求澄清 5 分钟、容量与成本估算 3 分钟、架构草图 8 分钟、深入 2 到 3 个点 15 分钟、权衡与取舍 5 分钟。给得出具体分钟数本身就是分数,因为它说明你掐过表。
    3. 然后正面回答「为什么不先画图」:一句话的题干里,日活、延迟预算、成本预算、是否多租户、失败可容忍度这五件事全是未知的,而它们每一个都会实质改变架构。不问就画,最好的结果是运气好蒙对,最坏的结果是二十分钟后面试官发现你解的是另一道题。用一个类比说清:甲方只说「我要一栋办公楼」,你就展开施工图,而他连预算是两千万还是两个亿都没讲。
    4. 补一条几乎每次都会遇到的现场情况:你开始问,面试官说「你先自己假设一个」。这不是让你别问了,是让你自己给一个数并说出依据。正确接法是「那我按日活 1 万、人均 5 轮算,如果实际是十万级我会在最后一步说明哪里要改」——既守住了节奏,又把假设变成了可追溯的前提。
    5. 最后主动交代第四步的准备方式:深入的 15 分钟不能临场想,要提前备好三个「深入包」(状态与保序、成本与限流、失败与重试),面试官挑哪个都有货。说得出「我提前准备了三个方向」,比现场硬讲一个更能体现你练过。
    6. 可以预期的追问:如果时间不够怎么办?答案是砍第三步而不是砍第五步——草图讲不完可以说「其余按常规做,需要的话我们回头补」,但权衡那 5 分钟一旦砍掉,你就和一个只会背架构的人没有区别。

    Key points

    • Five steps with time boxes: clarify 5, estimate 3, sketch 8, deep dive 15, trade-offs 5
    • Do not sketch first because DAU, latency budget, cost budget, multi-tenancy and failure tolerance all change the architecture
    • When told to 'just assume something', state a number with its justification instead of skipping clarification
    • Fill the 15-minute deep dive from three pre-prepared packages: state and ordering, cost and rate limiting, failure and retry
    • If time runs short, cut the sketch, never the trade-offs — almost nobody does that section, so doing it stands out

    答题要点

    • 五步加时间盒:澄清 5 分钟、估算 3 分钟、草图 8 分钟、深入 15 分钟、权衡 5 分钟
    • 不先画图,是因为日活、延迟预算、成本预算、是否多租户、失败可容忍度这五件事都会实质改变架构
    • 面试官说「你先假设一个」时,要自己给数并说出依据,而不是跳过澄清
    • 深入的 15 分钟要靠提前备好的三个「深入包」:状态与保序、成本与限流、失败与重试
    • 时间不够时砍草图不砍权衡——权衡那 5 分钟几乎没人做,做了就是加分

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