面试题库

分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

1. 这题最容易答成名词解释。区分度在于你能不能指出 ReAct 和那个 while 循环是同一个东西，而不是两套并列的技术——把它们说成两样，面试官会认为你只读过博客没写过代码。
2. 先给历史脉络：ReAct 出现时模型接口还没有工具字段，做法是在提示词里跟模型约定一套纯文本格式，让它交替吐出 Thought、Action、Action Input，你用正则把动作抠出来执行，再把 Observation 拼回提示词里继续。
3. 再做映射，这是拿分的一步：今天的 function calling 把这套口头约定固化成了协议——Thought 对应 message.content，Action 对应结构化的 tool_calls，Observation 对应你追加回去的那条 role 为 tool 的消息。所以 ReAct 是那个循环的名字，不是另一种实现。
4. 把取舍说出来：文本版脆在解析，模型少写一个换行、把参数写成 JSON、把 Action 和 Thought 换个顺序，正则就崩；结构化版把这个包袱交给了服务端，是今天的默认选择。但文本版没死——本地小模型、老接口不支持 tools 字段时，回退到「提示词约定 + 正则」仍是唯一可行的兜底，代价是解析失败率自己扛。
5. 可以预期的追问：要不要让模型显式写出 Thought？它多花 token，但复杂任务的准确率通常更好，日志也终于可读。这是一个可调旋钮，不是必选项，按任务复杂度决定。
6. 第二个追问：ReAct 和先规划后执行（Plan-and-Execute）有什么区别？ReAct 每一步都重新决策，边走边看，适合环境会变、信息要边查边补的任务；先规划后执行一次性出完整计划，步数和成本更可控，但对中途出现的意外不敏感。真实系统常常混用：先出一个粗计划，每一步内部再走 ReAct。

How to reason about it · think before answering

1. The trap is answering with a definition. What separates candidates is whether you can say that ReAct and the while loop you wrote are the same thing rather than two parallel technologies.
2. Give the history first: when ReAct appeared, model APIs had no tool field. The trick was a prompt-level convention — the model emitted Thought, Action and Action Input as plain text, you regex-extracted the action, ran it, and pasted the Observation back into the prompt.
3. Then map it, which is where the points are: function calling froze that convention into the protocol. Thought became message.content, Action became structured tool_calls, Observation became the tool-role message you append. ReAct is the name of your loop, not an alternative to it.
4. State the trade-off: the text version is brittle at the parsing layer — a missing newline, JSON where plain text was expected, or a reordered Thought and Action all break the regex. Structured tool calls hand that problem to the server, which is why they are the default today. The text version is still alive though: local small models and older endpoints without a tools field leave you no other option, and you own the parse failure rate.
5. Expect: should the model write its Thought out loud? It costs tokens, but accuracy on multi-step tasks usually improves and your logs finally become readable. Treat it as a dial, not a requirement.
6. Second follow-up: ReAct versus plan-and-execute? ReAct re-decides at every step, which suits environments that change or information you have to gather as you go; plan-and-execute commits to a full plan up front, giving predictable step counts and cost but reacting poorly to surprises. Production systems often nest them: a coarse plan on the outside, a ReAct loop inside each step.

分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

1. 这题考对 Agent 循环的理解。答成「测试很重要」是常识；要说清没有检查时循环在谁那里闭合。
2. 推导：Agent 在「做、看结果、改」的循环里工作，停下来的信号是「看起来做完了」。没有可运行的检查，「看起来做完了」是唯一信号，验证环落在人身上——每个错误都要等你注意到，你在场它是工具，你不在场它是风险。有了检查（测试、构建退出码、lint、比对脚本、截图对照），循环在机器里闭合：它做、它跑、它读结果、它改到通过，你只审证据。
3. 硬度分四档：写进提示词（「实现后跑 pnpm test 直到全过」）——今天就能用；设为 /goal——独立评估器每轮复核直到达成；写成 Stop hook——测试不过不允许结束，确定性门禁；交给另一个 subagent 复核——做的人和判的人分开。每升一档多一点配置，换来少一点盯着。
4. 生产视角：要求展示证据而不是宣布成功——贴测试输出、贴命令与返回值、贴截图；审证据比自己重跑快。
5. 可预期的追问：检查本身会不会被绕过？会——模型可能改测试让它过。对策是把测试目录放进禁改清单，或让 reviewer subagent 专门核对「有没有为了过而改测试」。

How to reason about it · think before answering

1. This tests understanding of the agent loop. 'Tests matter' is common sense; explain where the loop closes without a check.
2. Chain: an agent works in a do–observe–adjust loop and stops on 'looks done'. Without a runnable check, 'looks done' is the only signal and the verification step falls on you — every mistake waits to be noticed; present, it is a tool, absent, it is a risk. With a check (tests, build exit code, lint, diff-against-fixture, screenshot compare) the loop closes inside the machine: it works, runs, reads, and iterates to green while you review evidence.
3. Four levels: in the prompt ('run the tests until they pass') — usable today; as a /goal — an independent evaluator re-checks every turn; as a Stop hook — the turn cannot end until the check passes, deterministic; as a reviewer subagent — the one who did the work is not the one grading it. Each step trades setup for attention.
4. Production nuance: demand evidence, not claims — test output, commands and return values, screenshots; reviewing evidence beats re-running.
5. Follow-up: can the check itself be gamed? Yes — the model might edit tests to pass. Counter with a deny rule on the test directory or a reviewer specifically checking for test tampering.