面试题库
共 328 题,当前筛选 3 题。
Codex 与 OpenAI Agents SDK 高效使用
D1 Codex CLI 入门:安装、AGENTS.md、审批模式与沙箱、常用命令
Codex 把「什么时候问用户」和「能碰到什么」拆成 approval_policy 和 sandbox_mode 两组独立开关。为什么要拆?各自解决什么问题?Codex splits 'when to ask the user' and 'what can be touched' into two independent settings, approval_policy and sandbox_mode. Why separate them, and what does each solve?
国内高频海外高频进阶#coding-agent#security#sandbox分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答
- 题眼是「为什么拆」。只背出每组的取值等于没答,面试官要听的是两者正交带来的好处。
- 先给定义:审批策略是流程控制,决定动作执行前要不要人点头;沙箱是权限控制,决定即使模型想做、操作系统允不允许。
- 再说为什么正交:你可能想要「不打扰我,但绝不许出工作区」(on-request 加 workspace-write),也可能想要「每步都问,但只让它读」(untrusted 加 read-only);合成一个滑杆就表达不了这两种组合。
- 落到实现:沙箱靠操作系统机制(macOS Seatbelt、Linux bubblewrap),不是靠模型自觉,所以它是硬约束;审批则是唯一由人把关的环节。
- 可预期的追问:为什么网络默认关?因为联网是把内部代码送出去或把外部代码拉进来的通道,风险等级和改本地文件不同,需要单独授权。
How to reason about it · think before answering
- The discriminating part is 'why separate'; reciting the values without explaining orthogonality earns little.
- Define both: approval policy is process control, whether a human must nod before an action; sandbox is permission control, whether the OS allows the action at all.
- Then justify orthogonality with combinations a single slider cannot express: 'do not interrupt me but never leave the workspace' versus 'ask every time but read-only'.
- Ground it in implementation: the sandbox uses OS mechanisms (Seatbelt on macOS, bubblewrap on Linux) rather than model goodwill, so it is a hard limit, while approval is the one human checkpoint.
- Expect the follow-up: why is network off by default? Because network is the channel for code leaving or entering the machine, a different risk class from local edits.
答题要点
- approval_policy 管流程:untrusted / on-request / on-failure / never 决定动作前是否要人确认
- sandbox_mode 管权限:read-only / workspace-write / danger-full-access 决定操作系统放行什么
- 两者正交才能表达「不打扰但不越界」和「步步问但只读」这类组合
- 沙箱是操作系统级硬约束,审批是唯一的人工把关点;网络默认关闭需单独放开
Key points
- approval_policy governs process: untrusted / on-request / on-failure / never decide whether a human confirms first
- sandbox_mode governs permission: read-only / workspace-write / danger-full-access decide what the OS allows
- Orthogonality lets you express 'no interruptions but stay in the workspace' and 'ask each step but read-only'
- The sandbox is an OS-level hard limit, approval is the human checkpoint, and network is off by default
你要在团队里引入一个能在本地执行命令的 coding agent,怎么向不放心的同事解释它的风险边界?You want to introduce a coding agent that runs commands locally. How do you explain its risk boundary to skeptical teammates?
国内高频海外高频进阶#coding-agent#security#communication分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答
- 这题考的是沟通加工程两层:既要说清技术上的边界,又要用对方能验证的方式说,不能只说「它很安全」。
- 拆成三层防线来讲:第一层文字规则(AGENTS.md)管习惯;第二层沙箱管能力,只读或只能写工作区、网络默认关;第三层审批管例外,越界的每一步都要人批。
- 给出可验证的承诺:所有改动都在 git 工作区里,`git diff` 能看、`git checkout` 能撤;脱手运行只跑在一次性分支或容器里。
- 主动说出剩余风险:模型可能误读需求写出错误但能通过的代码,所以审查和测试不能省;密钥不要放在它能读到的文件里。
- 可预期的追问:能不能完全禁止它联网?可以,沙箱默认就不通网,需要装依赖时逐次批准,或在配置里给一个允许的域名清单。
How to reason about it · think before answering
- This tests communication as much as engineering: state the technical boundary in terms the listener can verify, not just 'it is safe'.
- Present three layers of defense: written rules (AGENTS.md) shape habits; the sandbox limits capability to read-only or workspace-only writes with network off; approvals gate every exception.
- Offer verifiable guarantees: every change lands in the git working tree, visible via diff and revertable via checkout; unattended runs stay on throwaway branches or containers.
- Name the residual risk yourself: the model can misread a requirement and produce wrong but passing code, so review and tests remain mandatory, and secrets stay out of readable files.
- Expect the follow-up: can network be fully blocked? Yes, the sandbox is offline by default; approve installs case by case or configure an allow-list of domains.
答题要点
- 三层防线:文字规则管习惯、沙箱管能力、审批管例外
- 改动全在 git 工作区,可 diff 可撤销;脱手运行只在一次性分支或容器
- 主动说明剩余风险:错误但能通过的代码、密钥暴露,所以审查与测试不能省
- 网络默认关闭,联网按次批准或配置允许域名清单
Key points
- Three layers: written rules for habits, the sandbox for capability, approvals for exceptions
- All edits live in the git working tree and are diffable and revertable; unattended runs use throwaway branches or containers
- State residual risks yourself: wrong-but-passing code and secret exposure, hence mandatory review and tests
- Network is off by default; approve per request or configure an allow-list
D3 Responses API 与内置工具:函数调用、web search / file search / computer use、结构化输出
平台内置的工具(web search、file search、computer use)和自己写的函数工具,各适合什么场景?为什么 computer use 要单独对待?When do you use platform built-in tools (web search, file search, computer use) versus your own function tools, and why does computer use deserve special treatment?
国内高频海外高频进阶#tools#responses-api#security分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答
- 题眼有两个:一是「谁来执行」,二是「副作用有多大」。只答功能对比不谈执行方与风险,就是没做过工程。
- 先给执行方的判据:内置工具由平台在服务端执行,你只声明、不回填、也控制不了它怎么搜;函数工具由你执行,样样自己写,但每一步都在你手里。
- 落到场景:数据在外面且通用(公网、你上传的文档)用内置工具;数据在你系统里(数据库、内部服务、业务逻辑)写函数;生产系统几乎总是混用。
- 再按副作用排一条光谱:web search 只读公网,file search 只读你给的文件,函数调用的副作用由你的代码决定,computer use 由模型直接产生副作用——越往右能力越强,需要的隔离越重。
- computer use 单独对待的原因:它能点任何按钮、输任何文字,还可能被页面内容诱导,所以正确起点是隔离环境、受限账号和站点与动作白名单,不是代码。
- 可预期的追问:内置的 file search 和自己搭 RAG 怎么选?前者是托管版,省掉切分、向量化、检索三步,代价是可控性与可观测性弱,需要自定义切分或重排时才自己搭。
How to reason about it · think before answering
- Two cruxes: who executes the tool, and how large its side effects are; comparing features alone signals no production experience.
- Executor test: built-in tools run server-side, you declare but never fill results and cannot steer the search; function tools run in your code, more work but full control.
- Map to scenarios: external, generic data (the web, your uploaded documents) fits built-ins; data inside your systems (databases, internal services, business logic) needs functions; production mixes both.
- Order by side effects: web search reads the public web, file search reads your files, function calls have whatever side effects your code allows, computer use lets the model act directly; more capability demands heavier isolation.
- Computer use is special because it can click anything, type anything and be steered by on-screen content, so the starting point is an isolated environment, a restricted account and an allow-list, not code.
- Expect the follow-up: built-in file search versus your own RAG? The built-in is a managed pipeline that skips chunking, embedding and retrieval work at the cost of control and observability; build your own when you need custom chunking or reranking.
答题要点
- 内置工具由平台执行、不用回填、不可干预;函数工具由你执行、全部可控
- 外部通用数据用内置工具,系统内数据与业务逻辑写函数,生产混用
- 按副作用排序:web search、file search、函数调用、computer use,能力越强隔离越重
- computer use 的起点是隔离环境与白名单,不是代码
Key points
- Built-ins run on the platform with no result filling and no steering; functions run in your code with full control
- External generic data suits built-ins, in-system data and business logic need functions, production mixes both
- Rank by side effects: web search, file search, function calls, computer use; more power needs more isolation
- Computer use starts with an isolated environment and an allow-list, not with code