逐日AI

面试题库

共 328 题,当前筛选 1 题。

标签
还有 362 个标签
#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#cloud1#compliance1#compression1#configuration1#confused-deputy1#consistent-hashing1#content-hash1#content-safety1#context-assembly1#context-compression1#context-management1#copyright1#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#labeling1#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#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

7 天 Agent Skills:把经验做成可复用能力

D2 写第一个 skill:description 的触发词怎么写、结构怎么分层、怎么装进客户端

  • 项目级和用户级的 skill 同名时该怎么处理?为什么各家客户端在这一点上会有不同的选择?How should a client resolve a name collision between a project-level and a user-level skill, and why do clients differ here?
    国内高频海外高频深入#agent-skills#client-integration

    分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

    1. 这题看起来是细节题,实际在考你有没有真的装过、有没有踩过。标准答案背后有一个分歧,能说出分歧的人一眼就是实操过的。
    2. 先给通行约定:跨客户端的普遍做法是**项目级压过用户级**,理由是离手头这份代码越近的配置越具体,理应赢。同一作用域内两个目录撞名,先找到还是后找到都行,但必须固定一种并保持一致。
    3. 再给分歧:具体客户端可以有自己的层级。Claude Code 的文档给出的顺序是企业级、个人级、项目级由高到低——**个人级压过项目级**,理由是不希望一个仓库带进来的 skill 悄悄覆盖掉你自己配的同名 skill。
    4. 把两种设计的取舍讲清楚,这是本题真正的区分度:项目优先换来的是「团队约定自动生效」,用户优先换来的是「不被陌生仓库劫持」。它们各自解决的是不同的风险。
    5. 顺势带出信任问题:项目级 skill 可能来自一个你刚 clone 的陌生仓库,等于让它往你的会话里注入指令。所以多数客户端把项目级加载挂在「信任这个目录」的开关后面。
    6. 可预期的追问是「撞名了怎么发现」。答案是客户端一般会打一条被遮蔽的警告,那条日志是排查的第一现场;实现方也应该在这种时候记录诊断信息而不是静默丢弃。

    How to reason about it · think before answering

    1. It looks like trivia but it tests whether you have actually installed skills. There is a real disagreement here, and naming it marks you as someone who has hit it.
    2. Start with the common convention: project-level overrides user-level, because configuration closer to the code at hand is more specific. Within one scope, first-found or last-found are both acceptable as long as you pick one and stay consistent.
    3. Then the divergence: Claude Code documents enterprise, then personal, then project, so personal wins over project, so that a cloned repository cannot silently shadow the skill you configured yourself.
    4. Explain the trade-off, which is where the marks are: project-first buys automatic team conventions, user-first buys protection from hijacking by an unfamiliar repository.
    5. Bring in trust: project-level skills can arrive with a freshly cloned repository and inject instructions into your session, which is why most clients gate them behind a folder-trust check.
    6. Expected follow-up: how do you notice a collision? Clients normally log a shadowed-skill warning, and implementers should record diagnostics rather than dropping the skill silently.

    答题要点

    • 通行约定是项目级压过用户级,同作用域内固定一种顺序并保持一致。
    • 具体客户端可以不同,比如 Claude Code 的顺序是企业级、个人级、项目级。
    • 项目优先换来团队约定自动生效,用户优先换来不被陌生仓库劫持。
    • 项目级 skill 可能来自不可信仓库,加载应挂在目录信任检查后面。
    • 撞名要打警告并记录诊断,不能静默遮蔽。

    Key points

    • The common convention is project over user, with a fixed, consistent rule inside a single scope.
    • Clients may differ: Claude Code documents enterprise, then personal, then project.
    • Project-first gives automatic team conventions; user-first prevents hijacking by an unfamiliar repository.
    • Project-level skills can come from untrusted repositories, so gate them behind a folder trust check.
    • Log a warning and record diagnostics on a collision instead of silently shadowing.