Stages
1. Recruiter Screen
Focus: communication clarity, behavioral signals, and role comprehension.
- Can the candidate articulate what they're looking for and why this role fits?
- Are there any obvious misalignments on level, scope, or expectations?
- Does the candidate understand what the team does?
2. Hiring Manager Screen
Focus: technical principles, design pattern familiarity, and architectural reasoning.
- Can the candidate explain why they made technical decisions, not just what they did?
- Do they understand design patterns well enough to know when not to use them?
- Can they reason about system tradeoffs under constraints?
For candidates at SE4 and above, a take-home assignment is included at this stage.
3. Pair Programming & Technical Interview
The pair programming session is the most signal-rich part of the process. The goal is not to watch someone solve a puzzle — it's to see how they think, communicate, and respond to feedback in a collaborative setting.
Pair Programming Approaches
Three approaches are common, each with real tradeoffs:
Option 1 — Online Coding Platforms (e.g., CoderPad, HackerRank)
Standardized and easy to administer. The downside is limited problem variety and an artificial environment that doesn't reflect how the team actually works. Candidates with platform familiarity have a structural advantage.
Option 2 — Scaffolded Internal Project
A purpose-built repo the team maintains for interviews. More realistic, more flexible, and shows candidates what it's actually like to work in your codebase. The cost is ongoing maintenance and the need to refresh the problem set over time.
Option 3 — Take-Home Assignment
A real problem (sanitized) from internal work, given in advance. Yields the most authentic signal — you see how someone approaches a problem with adequate time, not under artificial pressure. Lower maintenance than a scaffolded project.
The main concern with take-homes is equity: candidates with significant non-work obligations are disadvantaged by async formats. Mitigate this by keeping scope tight and being explicit about expected time investment.
Recommendation: Option 3 yields the best, most consistent signal when the problem is drawn from real work the team has done. The familiarity helps interviewers evaluate the response more accurately.