Codex, Level Up: Cloud Tasks, Code Review, MCP Integration, Custom Instructions, IDE Integration

Interview questions

• A cloud coding agent can run many tasks in parallel with nobody around to approve steps. Where should its approval boundary sit?云端 coding agent 能同时跑很多任务，但没有人在旁边点头。它的审批边界应该画在哪里？

  Common in ChinaCommon overseasIntermediate#coding-agent#cloud#approvals

  How to reason about it · think before answering

  1. This checks whether you noticed the approval model changed: local means step-by-step approval, cloud means authorize upfront and review afterwards.
  2. Split the boundary across three moments: before the task (environment config decides network, variables, dependencies), during (container isolation), after (a human reviews the diff before any PR).
  3. Conclude that the cloud boundary is two gates, environment config plus pre-PR human review, with nobody in between; hence no production secrets, network off by default, merge rights stay human.
  4. Add the engineering angle: draw boundaries between parallel tasks too; tasks that touch the same files should not run concurrently.
  5. Expect the follow-up: can it auto-merge? Only in low-risk repos for fully green PRs, with rollback in place, and treat enabling auto-merge as a change that itself needs approval.

  分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

  1. 这题考的是你有没有意识到「审批模型变了」：本地是逐步审批，云端只能事先授权、事后审阅。答成「跟本地一样弹窗」说明没用过。
  2. 拆法是把边界分成三个时间点：任务开始前（环境配置决定能联网什么、有哪些变量、装什么依赖）、任务执行中（容器隔离，改动只在容器里）、任务结束后（人审 diff 再决定开不开 PR）。
  3. 结论是：云端的审批边界就是「环境配置 + PR 前人工审阅」这两道门，中间不再有人；所以生产密钥不能进环境、公网默认关、合并权限保留在人手里。
  4. 补一条工程视角：并行任务之间的边界也要画——互相会改同一批文件的任务不要同时派，否则合并成本吃掉并行收益。
  5. 可预期的追问：能不能让它自动合并？可以在低风险仓库对通过全部测试的 PR 这么做，但要保留回滚手段，并且把「自动合并」本身当成一个需要审批的配置变更。

  Key points

  • No step-wise approval in the cloud; the boundary becomes upfront environment config plus post-hoc human review
  • Keep production secrets out, network off by default, merge rights with humans
  • Draw boundaries between parallel tasks: never run file-overlapping tasks concurrently
  • Auto-merge only for low-risk repos with fully green PRs, with rollback ready

  答题要点

  • 云端没有逐步审批，边界变成事前的环境配置与事后的人工审阅两道门
  • 环境里不放生产密钥、公网默认关、合并权限保留给人
  • 并行任务之间也要画边界：会改同一批文件的任务不同时派
  • 自动合并只适用于低风险仓库且全绿的 PR，并保留回滚
• If the same model both writes and reviews code, is the review still meaningful? How do you make it more independent?让同一个模型既写代码又审代码，审查还有意义吗？怎么让审查更独立？

  Common in ChinaCommon overseasIntermediate#code-review#coding-agent#workflow

  How to reason about it · think before answering

  1. The crux is 'still meaningful'; a flat yes or no fails. Explain what it catches and what it misses.
  2. What it catches: the input changes (diff instead of requirements) and the stance changes (find faults instead of finish the job), which surfaces missed edge cases, unsynced callers and style violations.
  3. What it misses: reviewer and author share one understanding of the requirement, so a misread requirement passes; they share blind spots too.
  4. Conclude with three independence levers: review with a different vendor's model, feed the reviewer different information (original requirement plus acceptance criteria, not just the diff), and run deterministic checks first.
  5. Expect the follow-up: auto-apply review comments? No; review is input, not verdict, and both false positives and misses exist.

  分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

  1. 题眼在「还有意义吗」——直接答「没意义」或「有意义」都不及格，要说清它能抓什么、抓不到什么。
  2. 先说能抓的：审查时输入变了（看 diff 而不是需求）、立场变了（找问题而不是完成任务），这种角色切换能抓出漏掉的边界情况、没同步的调用方、明显的风格违规。
  3. 再说抓不到的：审查者和生成者共享同一份对需求的理解，需求理解错了两边一起错；也共享同样的盲区与偏好。
  4. 结论给三条提高独立性的手段：换一家模型审、给审查者不同的信息（需求原文加验收标准而不是只给 diff）、用确定性工具（测试、lint、类型检查）做第一道审查。
  5. 可预期的追问：审查意见要不要自动应用？不要，审查是输入不是判决，误报与漏报都存在，最终判断留给人。

  Key points

  • Yes: the switch of input and stance catches edge cases, unsynced callers and style issues
  • It misses requirement misreads because author and reviewer share one understanding
  • Increase independence: a different vendor's model, richer reviewer context, deterministic checks first
  • Treat comments as input, never auto-apply

  答题要点

  • 有意义：输入与立场的切换能抓出边界情况、未同步的调用方、风格违规
  • 抓不到与需求理解相关的错误，因为审查者与生成者共享同一份理解
  • 提高独立性：换一家模型审、给审查者需求原文与验收标准、先跑确定性检查
  • 审查意见是输入不是判决，不要自动应用
• MCP servers and skills both extend a coding agent. When do you reach for each, and what goes in the project instruction file instead?MCP server 和 skill 都是在给 coding agent 加能力，什么时候该用哪一个？项目说明文件又放什么？

  Common in ChinaCommon overseasBasic#mcp#skills#coding-agent

  How to reason about it · think before answering

  1. This tests separation of abstraction levels, the tooling-side version of the increasingly common 'function calling vs MCP vs skills' question.
  2. Ask what is being added: access to an external system (tickets, databases, internal services) is MCP, a protocol-level tool; a multi-step procedure (release checklist, migration flow) is a skill, a prompt-level workflow package; conventions to obey every session belong in the instruction file.
  3. Contrast triggers: MCP tools are invoked by the model when it needs data; skills are invoked explicitly by name or matched by description; instruction files are loaded unconditionally at session start.
  4. Conclude: rules in the instruction file, external systems via MCP, procedures as skills; keep each fact in one place to avoid contradictions.
  5. Expect the follow-up: can a skill use MCP tools? Yes; a skill's steps can call for a tool, the layers are orthogonal, not substitutes.

  分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

  1. 这题考的是抽象层次的区分，是国内面试开始高频出现的「Function Call / MCP / Skills 三者区别」的工具侧版本。
  2. 拆法是问「加的是什么」：加的是访问外部系统的能力（查工单、读数据库、调内部服务）就是 MCP，它是协议层的工具；加的是一套多步骤的做法（发版检查、迁移流程）就是 skill，它是提示词层的流程包；每次会话都要遵守的约定就是项目说明文件。
  3. 再给触发方式的差别：MCP 工具由模型在需要数据时调用；skill 由用户显式点名或由模型按描述匹配；说明文件每次会话开头无条件读入。
  4. 结论落到一句话：规矩归说明文件、外部系统归 MCP、流程归 skill；同一件事只放一处，避免三处互相矛盾。
  5. 可预期的追问：skill 里能不能调 MCP 工具？可以，skill 的步骤里可以要求使用某个工具，两者是正交的层次，不是替代关系。

  Key points

  • MCP adds tools that reach external systems, invoked by the model on demand
  • Skills add multi-step procedures, triggered by name or matched by description
  • The instruction file holds conventions, no-go areas and environment facts read every session
  • The three are orthogonal: rules, external systems, procedures each live in one place; a skill may call for an MCP tool

  答题要点

  • MCP 加的是访问外部系统的工具，由模型按需调用
  • skill 加的是多步骤流程，由用户点名或按描述匹配触发
  • 项目说明文件放每次会话都要遵守的约定、禁区与环境事实
  • 三者正交：规矩、外部系统、流程各放一处，skill 里可以要求用某个 MCP 工具

Comments

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet — be the first.