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#star1#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#quality-check1#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#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
30 天从前端工程师到 Agent 工程师
D27 简历与项目包装:STAR、README、架构图、demo 视频、英文简历
请用 STAR 法则讲一个你做过的技术项目。Walk me through a technical project of yours using the STAR framework.
国内高频海外高频基础#behavioral#star#resume分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答
- 这题在考「你会不会控制信息密度」,不是考你记不记得 STAR 四个字母。面试官已经听过几十遍 STAR,他真正在数的是:你花了多少时间讲背景、多少时间讲你自己做了什么、最后有没有一个能被追问的数字。
- 先定时间分配再开口,这是可以现场执行的一条纪律:情境 20 秒、任务 15 秒、行动 90 秒、结果 25 秒。绝大多数人的失败模式是情境讲了 90 秒——那部分听起来最安全,因为不涉及你的能力,所以人会不自觉地躲在那里。
- 行动那 90 秒里只讲你亲手做的部分,主语必须是「我」。团队做了什么用一句话带过,然后立刻切回「我负责的是其中的 X,我的做法是 Y」。说不清「我和别人的边界在哪」,这条经历在评分表上会被打成不可验证。
- 结果必须落到一个带前后对照的数字,并且主动补一句测量条件。比如「分片利用率从 256 个里只占 1 个变成全占满,最大桶从 2000 条降到 19 条,这是本地单机、2000 个模拟用户、256 个分片的自检结果」。补测量条件不是示弱——它把「我知道自己测的是什么」这件事直接摆出来了。
- 如果这段经历是学习项目或课程项目,在情境那 20 秒里就说清楚,不要等到被追问。主动交代来源的人,后面报的数字反而更容易被相信;藏着掖着被问出来,之前讲的全部要被重新掂量一遍。
- 可以预期的追问:「这个数字是怎么测的?」以及「如果规模再大十倍,这个做法还成立吗?」第一个考真实性,第二个考边界感——答第二个时要主动说出「在什么规模下我会推翻现在这个设计」,这一句几乎没人说,说了就是加分。
How to reason about it · think before answering
- This question tests whether you can control information density, not whether you remember four letters. The interviewer has heard STAR dozens of times; what he is actually timing is how long you spend on background versus on what you personally did, and whether you land on a number he can probe.
- Decide the time split before you open your mouth: 20 seconds of situation, 15 of task, 90 of action, 25 of result. The classic failure is spending 90 seconds on situation — it feels safe because it says nothing about your ability, so people hide there.
- In those 90 seconds of action, say 'I', not 'we'. Summarize the team's work in one sentence, then cut straight back to 'my piece was X, and the way I did it was Y'. If your boundary with the rest of the team is unclear, the story is scored as unverifiable.
- The result has to be a before-and-after number, and you volunteer the measurement conditions with it: 'shard utilization went from 1 of 256 to all 256, and the largest bucket dropped from 2000 to 19 — measured locally with 2000 simulated users across 256 shards.' Naming the conditions is not hedging; it shows you know what you measured.
- If it is a personal or course project, say so inside the first 20 seconds rather than waiting to be asked. Volunteering the origin makes your numbers more credible, not less; being caught hiding it forces the interviewer to re-weigh everything you said before.
- Expect two follow-ups: 'how did you measure that?' and 'does this still hold at ten times the scale?' The first tests honesty, the second tests judgment — answer the second by naming the scale at which you would throw this design away.
答题要点
- 开口前先分配时间:情境 20 秒、任务 15 秒、行动 90 秒、结果 25 秒,别让背景吃掉一半时长
- 行动部分主语是「我」,明确说出自己和团队的边界
- 结果给一个带前后对照的数字,并主动补上测量条件
- 学习项目在情境阶段就主动交代,不等追问
- 结尾主动加一句「在什么规模下这个设计会失效」,把边界感摆出来
Key points
- Budget the time before speaking: 20s situation, 15s task, 90s action, 25s result — never let background eat half the answer
- Say 'I' in the action section and draw a clear line between your work and the team's
- End on a before-and-after number and volunteer how it was measured
- Disclose that it is a personal or course project up front, not under questioning
- Close by naming the scale at which the design would break — it signals judgment