Candidate

1 INTERVIEW DONE

Tested Sections

AVG SCORES
Someone with this score demonstrates strong coding ability. They implement their ideas without significant help. The are typically able to quickly translate algorithmic ideas into code. They tend to write correct, well structured, and readable code. Most of the time they pay attention to details and are able to find and fix potential issues during testing.
This is a type of candidate that is strong in algorithmic and problem solving areas. They're able to quickly and independently come up with efficient and optimal solutions. They quickly disprove incorrect or less optimal approaches. They approach problems by following a logical thought process and are able to make constant progress. Their solutions demonstrate a very clear understanding of underlying algorithmic concepts and data structures.
INTERVIEWER'S THOUGHTS ON THE INTERVIEW The candidate demonstrated a great ability to solve difficult problems. They independently produce well structured and optimal code and did so very effectively and quickly such that we had quite a bit of time left in the interview to discuss interesting trade-offs. Even though they were planning to implement one of the methods recursively, upon my request they easily switched it to an iterative approach, which showed clarity and understanding. Algorithms and data structures understanding as well as problem solving was on a great level as well in this interview. The candidate was able to independently solve both problems algorithmically. Their time complexity analysis was a bit less confident than I would have ideally liked.
  • How well did the interviewer test candidate's knowledge / ability
  • Barely covered or
    it was trivial
  • Tested, but was not
    very complicated
  • Tested well or was a main
    point of the interview
  • Tested very well. Does not leave much
    doubt about the candidate's ability

At the end of the interview, was the code correct?

  • It was close to flawless.
  • It had minor bugs or did not cover minor edge cases.
  • It had major bugs or it missed major edge cases.
  • Did not even solve the main case.

How much help did you have to provide in coding (after the concept/algorithm was relatively clear)?

  • No significant help.
  • Some help on small corrections or edge cases.
  • Significant help on critical sections of the code.
  • Help with nearly all portions of the code.

How well did they create test cases?

  • Test cases covered nearly all issues and code paths.
  • Test cases missed minor edge cases.
  • Test cases missed a major case or testing was not thorough enough to catch obvious issues.
  • The code wasn’t tested, though it should have been.

How was their code effectiveness/speed?

  • They coded effectively and quickly.
  • They took somewhat longer than ideal or required rewrites of some code.
  • They were stuck often or spent much longer than ideal.
  • Even simple coding portions were very slow.

How was their consideration and knowledge of programming internals?

  • Showed advanced knowledge and articulated trade-offs well.
  • Cared about internals, but might lack minor knowledge.
  • Needed significant help or error correction with respect to programming internals.
  • Significant lack of care and understanding of programming internals.

How was their code readability and hygiene (style, commenting, naming, code/logic flow, etc.)?

  • Nearly production quality code.
  • Good in most dimensions.
  • Significant lack of readability or coding hygiene.
  • Nearly unreadable code.
  • How well did the interviewer test candidate's knowledge / ability
  • Barely covered or
    it was trivial
  • Tested, but was not
    very complicated
  • Tested well or was a main
    point of the interview
  • Tested very well. Does not leave much
    doubt about the candidate's ability

How was the candidate’s problem solving ability?

  • Independently thought of an interview optimal solution.
  • Needed minor hints or was able to come up with a solution that is a close alternative to an optimal solution.
  • Needed major hints or they stopped at a clearly sub-optimal solution.
  • I had to reveal significant portions of the problem or walk through the solution.

How was their problem understanding during the algorithmic planning?

  • Had a good grasp of the scope of the problem and used clarifying questions effectively
  • Might have missed minor parts of the problem or started working without proper understanding.
  • Did not understand major parts of the problem without being pointed out.
  • Had quite a bit of difficulty understanding the problem.

How was their understanding of data structures?

  • Showed good understanding of the trade-offs between different data structures and used them effectively.
  • Good understanding of data structures but might have used them slightly ineffectively.
  • Poor understanding of data structures or guessing data structure to use instead of understanding the requirements.
  • Lack of understanding of major data structures, their time/space constraints or other implementation fundamentals.

How was their complexity analysis?

  • The analysis was correct and fast.
  • The analysis was correct but took longer than expected or had minor problems.
  • The analysis was correct but only after somewhat significant hints.
  • They could not analyze the complexity.
Give feedback