面试题库

分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

1. 这是本组最有区分度的题，因为它反着问。绝大多数候选人会顺着「多 Agent 很强大」讲下去，而面试官问这题正是想找那个会说不的人——**在真实团队里，拦住一次不必要的架构升级，价值高于实现三个模式**。
2. 先给结论式的默认值：默认答案是不拆。然后给三条判据，命中任意一条才拆——一是单个 Agent 的系统提示词里出现了互斥的行为要求（既要严格核对退款规则又要热情挽留，这两条不是难写，是不可能同时最优）；二是工具数量超过模型能稳定选对的规模（经验线大约八个，超线的第一反应是合并工具而不是拆 Agent）；三是某一步需要独立的失败与重试语义。三条都不命中，单 Agent 加几个工具就够。
3. 接着点名最常见的错拆：把提示词问题当成架构问题。「回答质量不好，所以拆成三个 Agent」——质量差有九成来自提示词含糊、工具描述互相干扰、上下文塞了无关历史，这三样拆完一样存在，只是分散到三个地方更难查。**拆 Agent 解决的是职责冲突，不是能力不足。**
4. 再补两类明确不该拆的场景：一是低延迟要求的场景，多一跳就多一次模型往返，对语音或实时补全这类交互直接不可用；二是只读的简单查询链路，三五个工具的客服助手拆了只是把一次调用变成三次，准确率不会涨、账单会涨。
5. 然后给一条可执行的验证路径，这是加分项：任何拆分都先留住单 Agent 版本当对照基线，用同一批标准样本集跑 A/B，同时比准确率、每次对话成本和延迟。**拿不出对照基线的架构升级，等于没有证据的重构。**
6. 可以预期的追问：那如果老板就是要求上多 Agent 呢？答：那就把它当成一个可回退的实验来做——先按判据拆最有把握的那一刀（通常是互斥规则那一条），保留基线，两周后拿数据说话。这个回答同时展示了技术判断和沟通方式，比硬顶或硬上都好。

How to reason about it · think before answering

1. This is the highest-signal question in the set because it is asked in reverse. Most candidates keep selling how powerful multi-agent is, while the interviewer is looking for someone who will say no — on a real team, blocking one unnecessary architecture upgrade is worth more than implementing three patterns.
2. Lead with the default: do not split. Then give three criteria, any one of which justifies splitting — the system prompt contains mutually exclusive behavioural requirements (strictly enforce refund rules while also warmly retaining the customer; these are not hard to write, they are impossible to optimise together); the tool count exceeds what the model picks reliably (roughly eight as a rule of thumb, and the first response to crossing it is consolidating tools, not splitting agents); or one step needs its own failure and retry semantics. None of the three, and a single agent with a few tools is enough.
3. Then name the most common bad split: treating a prompt problem as an architecture problem. Quality is poor, so we split into three agents — but nine times out of ten poor quality comes from vague prompts, tool descriptions that interfere with each other, or irrelevant history in the context. All three survive the split and are now harder to find. Splitting fixes conflicting responsibilities, not weak capability.
4. Add two scenarios that clearly should not split: latency-sensitive interactions, where each extra hop is another model round trip and voice or realtime completion becomes unusable; and read-only lookup flows, where a support assistant with three or four tools gains no accuracy from splitting and simply triples the bill.
5. Then offer an executable verification path, which earns points: keep the single-agent version as a baseline for any split and A/B both against the same golden set, comparing accuracy, per-conversation cost and latency together. An architecture upgrade with no baseline is a refactor with no evidence.
6. Expect: what if your manager insists on multi-agent? Frame it as a reversible experiment — make the one cut you are most confident in (usually the conflicting-rules criterion), keep the baseline, and bring data in two weeks. That answer shows technical judgement and a way to disagree without stonewalling.

分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

1. 这题在考自我批判的质量。答「没什么要改的」直接出局；答一堆花哨的新技术也不行，因为那说明你没从这次的实践里学到东西。好答案是具体的、有代价分析的、并且能追溯到某一次踩坑。
2. 先立一个筛选标准：只讲那些我这次真的被绊过、而且知道正确做法的地方。不确定的部分坦白说不确定——说得出方案的边界，比说得出方案本身更能证明你做过。
3. 第一处可以讲重算范围。审核台上改一句台词，现在是按节点依赖整体重算下游，粒度偏粗；更好的做法是让每个节点声明自己依赖输入的哪几个字段，改台词只触发配音与字幕，不碰视频。代价是节点定义变复杂，收益是重做成本从一整镜降到一次语音合成。
4. 第二处是成本模型。现在的单价表里有折算值和留空项，估算够用但不能对账；接了真实账单之后应该改成从账单反推实测单价，并保留一个偏差告警——估算和实际差超过阈值就报警，这比事后对账有用得多。
5. 第三处是并发模型。现在闸门是按 provider 分类做的，更贴近现实的做法是按「配额桶」建模，因为同一家厂商的不同接口配额独立，而不同厂商之间又完全独立。改了之后限流的定位会准很多。
6. 可预期的追问是「为什么当初不那样做」。诚实回答：当时先做能跑通的最小版本，把复杂度留给已经被数据证明值得的地方。这句话本身就是架构判断——面试官想听的正是你会不会区分「必要的复杂度」和「过早的复杂度」。

How to reason about it · think before answering

1. This tests the quality of your self-critique. Saying nothing needs changing ends the conversation; listing trendy technologies is just as bad, because it shows you learned nothing from the build. A good answer is specific, has a cost analysis, and traces back to a concrete stumble.
2. Set a filter first: only discuss places where you actually got tripped up and now know the right approach. Say plainly where you are still unsure, because naming the limits of your solution proves more than the solution itself.
3. First, recomputation scope. Editing one line of dialogue currently recomputes the whole downstream subgraph. Better would be for each node to declare which input fields it depends on, so a dialogue edit triggers only speech and subtitles, never video. The cost is more complex node definitions; the benefit is redoing one synthesis instead of a whole shot.
4. Second, the cost model. The rate card today mixes derived prices with deliberate blanks, which is fine for projection but useless for reconciliation. Once real invoices exist, back out measured unit prices from them and keep a drift alert that fires when projection and reality diverge past a threshold, which beats after-the-fact reconciliation.
5. Third, the concurrency model. Gates are currently keyed by provider, but modelling them as quota buckets matches reality better, since different endpoints from one vendor have independent quotas while different vendors are fully independent. Rate-limit diagnosis gets far more precise.
6. Expect the follow-up: why not build it that way originally? Answer honestly that you shipped the smallest working version and spent complexity only where data justified it. That sentence is itself an architectural judgement, and distinguishing necessary complexity from premature complexity is exactly what the interviewer is listening for.