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#client-integration1#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#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

5 天上下文工程

D4 长时程会话:压缩、笔记与记忆文件、子代理隔离与交接摘要

  • 子代理为什么只回传摘要而不回传全过程?主代理该怎么写交接要求?Why does a subagent return only a summary instead of its full transcript, and how should the lead agent specify the handoff?
    国内高频海外高频深入#subagents#handoff#cost

    分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

    1. 这题在考架构意图。答「为了省 token」只对了一半,而且是次要的那一半——子代理架构整体上是更贵的,不是更省的。
    2. 怎么拆:先说清目的。子代理隔离买的不是省钱,是主线上下文的干净。子代理可以在自己独立的窗口里烧掉几万 token 反复探索,主线只多了一两千 token 的浓缩结论,中间过程一个字都没进主线。这是关注点分离在上下文层面的落地。
    3. 把代价摆出来,这是最能体现做过工程的地方:Agent 类应用本来就比聊天多用约 4 倍 token,多 Agent 系统约 15 倍。所以适用面很窄——探索量大但产出能浓缩、子任务彼此独立可并行、主线确实不需要看中间过程,三条缺一就该退回压缩。
    4. 结论给交接契约:三段式(已定结论、待办事项、硬约束),且每条结论必须带来源标识(文件路径、订单号、URL)。原因是没有标识的结论不可复查,主线只能全盘相信或全盘重做;带标识之后主线可以只对存疑的那条做定点核实。硬约束那一段没有也要写「无」,不能省略,否则主线分不清是没有还是忘了写。
    5. 可预期的追问:主代理自己的计划怎么办?也该写到窗口外面。长任务后期一旦触发截断或压缩,最先丢的往往就是最初那份计划,而它恰恰最不该丢。

    How to reason about it · think before answering

    1. This tests architectural intent. Saying it saves tokens is only half right, and the lesser half: multi-agent setups are more expensive overall, not cheaper.
    2. State the purpose. Subagent isolation buys a clean main context, not a smaller bill. A subagent can burn tens of thousands of tokens exploring in its own window while the main thread gains only a condensed result of one or two thousand tokens. It is separation of concerns applied to context.
    3. Put the cost on the table, which is where engineering experience shows: agentic applications use roughly four times the tokens of chat, and multi-agent systems roughly fifteen times. So the fit is narrow: heavy exploration with a condensable result, independent parallelizable subtasks, and a main thread that genuinely does not need the intermediate steps. Missing any one, fall back to compaction.
    4. Conclusion: specify a handoff contract of three sections (settled conclusions, open items, hard constraints), with every conclusion carrying a source identifier such as a file path, order id, or URL. Without identifiers the main thread can only trust everything or redo everything; with them it can spot-check the one claim it doubts. Require the constraints section even when empty, or the main thread cannot tell absent from forgotten.
    5. Expect the follow-up about the lead agent's own plan: write it outside the window too, since truncation or compaction late in a long task tends to eat the original plan first.

    答题要点

    • 隔离买的是主线上下文的干净,不是省钱;多 Agent 整体更贵。
    • 代价数量级:Agent 约为聊天的 4 倍 token,多 Agent 约 15 倍。
    • 适用三条:探索量大且产出可浓缩、子任务独立可并行、主线不需要中间过程;缺一就退回压缩。
    • 交接契约三段式,每条结论必须带来源标识,硬约束段即使为空也要显式写「无」。
    • 主代理自己的计划也要写到窗口外,长任务里它最容易被截断或压缩吃掉。

    Key points

    • Isolation buys a clean main context, not savings; multi-agent is more expensive overall.
    • Magnitudes: agents use about four times chat tokens, multi-agent about fifteen times.
    • Fits when exploration is heavy but condensable, subtasks are independent and parallel, and the main thread does not need intermediate steps.
    • Handoff contract in three sections, every conclusion carrying a source identifier, and an explicit none when constraints are empty.
    • Persist the lead agent's plan outside the window, since it is the first casualty of truncation late in long tasks.