面试题库
共 328 题,当前筛选 1 题。
课程全部30 天从前端工程师到 Agent 工程师5 天提示词工程零基础Claude 高效使用:从对话到 Claude CodeCodex 与 OpenAI Agents SDK 高效使用7 天 MCP:把工具接进任何 Agent7 天 Agent Skills:把经验做成可复用能力5 天上下文工程14 天 RAG:从检索到可信回答14 天用 Agent 搭一条 AI 短剧生产线
标签
全部#quality-check1#evaluation30#cost29#reliability24#architecture22#agent-skills21#security18#observability15#streaming12#error-handling11#idempotency10#system-design10
还有 359 个标签收起标签
#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#interview-process2#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#compression1#configuration1#confused-deputy1#consistent-hashing1#content-hash1#content-safety1#context-assembly1#context-compression1#context-management1#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#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#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
14 天用 Agent 搭一条 AI 短剧生产线
D11 质检与合规:机器审片、内容安全、生成内容标识与版权边界
怎么把画面质量这种主观判断变成可自动判定的检查?How do you turn a subjective judgement like visual quality into an automatable check?
国内高频海外高频进阶#quality-check#evaluation#multimodal分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答
- 这题在考拆解能力。直接答「让多模态模型打分」只答了一半,而且是偷懒的那一半——面试官想看你怎么把一个不可判真假的命题拆成可判定的。
- 第一步是分类:把检查项分成「本地量得出来的」和「必须让模型看图的」。分辨率、音画时长差、字幕字数与每秒字数、配音响度,这四类用 ffprobe 加几行算术就有确定答案;角色一致性、画面崩坏则本地没有可靠代理指标。
- 分类的价值是账算得清:客观项出问题一定是文件真有毛病,主观项出问题可能是模型看错了。混成一个总分,事故来的时候分不清该修文件还是修提示词。
- 第二步是给每一项配齐三样:测量对象、阈值、**修正动作**。第三样最容易漏也最关键——一项检查不合格却说不出该怎么办,它就是摆设,你只能记一行日志继续往下走。
- 第三步是处理模型那一侧的不确定性:要求它只返回结构化结论,并且**解析不出来时标成无结论、需人工,绝不当成通过**。把「模型说没问题」和「模型没答上来」混为一谈,是自动质检里最常见的事故。
- 可预期的追问是「阈值怎么定」。用人工审核攒下来的带结论的样本回测,看阈值定在几分时机器结论与人的重合度最高;没有这份数据就只能拍脑袋。
How to reason about it · think before answering
- This tests decomposition. Answering just use a multimodal model to score it covers only the lazy half; the interviewer wants to see you turn a non-falsifiable statement into checkable ones.
- Step one is classification: split checks into locally measurable and must-be-seen-by-a-model. Resolution, audio-video duration delta, subtitle length and reading rate, and loudness all have deterministic answers from ffprobe plus arithmetic. Character consistency and visual breakdown have no reliable local proxy.
- The classification pays off in accounting: a failing objective check means the file really is wrong, while a failing subjective one might just mean the model misread. Merge them into one score and you cannot tell whether to fix the file or the prompt.
- Step two gives every check three things: what is measured, the threshold, and the corrective action. The third is the one people skip and the one that matters, because a check that fails without a prescribed fix is decoration.
- Step three handles model-side uncertainty: demand a structured verdict, and when it cannot be parsed mark the item as no-conclusion, needs-human, never as a pass. Conflating the model said fine with the model did not answer is the classic automated-QC incident.
- Expected follow-up: how to set thresholds. Backtest against human-reviewed samples and pick the threshold where machine and human verdicts agree most. Without that data you are guessing.
答题要点
- 先分类:本地量得出来的客观项(分辨率、音画差、字幕密度、响度)与必须看图的主观项(角色一致性、画面崩坏)分开记账。
- 每一项配齐三样:测量对象、阈值、修正动作;没有修正动作的检查项是摆设。
- 模型评审要求返回结构化结论,解析失败标成需人工,绝不默认通过。
- 阈值靠人工审核样本回测确定,不拍脑袋。
- 客观项失败说明文件有问题,主观项失败可能是模型看错——这个区分决定了排查方向。
Key points
- Classify first: objective local measurements (resolution, av delta, subtitle density, loudness) versus model-only judgements (character consistency, visual breakdown).
- Give every check a measurement, a threshold and a corrective action; a check with no action is decoration.
- Require a structured verdict from the model, and treat unparseable output as needs-human, never as a pass.
- Set thresholds by backtesting against human-reviewed samples.
- An objective failure means the file is wrong; a subjective failure may mean the model misread. That split drives triage.