My honest feedback below from the perspective of a hirer. I'll start by saying I hate takehome stuff, for exactly reasons like this. It wastes everyone's time. They're fine as a 'last step before hire' thing, but not as a filter.
1 - Too much chatter. Part of the assignment is using judgment and working in ambiguity. I probably would have ran with what was given enough to knock out something small and local in an evening or two. Asking questions is usually fine, they even welcomed it, but seems counter to the original ask.
2 - Writing and sharing a proposal seemed like way overkill. You have to remember that these companies are now getting hundreds if not thousands if not tens of thousands of applicants, that is a lot to deal with if everyone does so. I think it's a bit of a disconnect...you feel like you're going above and beyond and being thorough, they feel like it's being a bit long winded and wasting time.
That probably explains the nonresponse.
3 - The finished product seemed functional, but seemed a bit overkill on the infra and polish. This is probably a good thing to work with you, but ended up wasting a lot of your time if not being selected, which was the case.
4 - Maybe I missed something, but the requirement asked for terminal inspired. I'm not quite sure precisely what they meant by that, but didn't see any possible interpretation of that in the result.
Anyways, hope you don't take it too negatively or personally - you obviously are a talented individual and moreso seem to really care about your work. Just wanted to play a little devil's advocate with a different perspective.
The attitude of the blog writer in their interactions also feels off. Just reading this blog post makes me think that this person is difficult to work with, requires extremely clear guidelines and instructions, and has a hard time making their own decisions. Maybe this is a good fit for a large, established company, but startups have their own needs.
"Create a terminal inspired email client so we can do an alpha test with some customers" is a reasonable ask for an engineer at an early stage startup. Of course, there would be a bit more specification, but a lot of the details would still be up to the engineer. This applicant wants more certainty than they can get.
This is illustrated by the line: "I would like to know what kind of response I could expect from Kagi if I drive it to completion." This is not a great request to make. There's no way they can answer that question, because there is no certainty available. They're probably getting a few hundred or a few thousand more submissions to evaluate.
Seriously? A candidate puts in a week of work and he can’t be guaranteed a 30 minute discussion?
Nobody is getting a few hundred or few thousand submissions to evaluate. Nobody. If you are getting 1k applicants, at best 50 are asked to do a take-home and even then, not all at once.
If by some miracle 100 people did this to completion at the same time, there should be a notice to the effect that due to high volume, blah blah blah.
Yes on this: It reminds me of when candidates ask me how they did at the end of the interview. It shows an extreme lack of decorum and empathy. What if you did terribly and I wouldn't hire you in a million years? Do you really want me to tell you that?
There's no good answer and asking a question like that shows real narcissism imo.
Conversely, if you can't handle some straightforward feedback to a candidate that took the time to interview you without violating decorum or hurting their feelings, then how can I expect you to be a good manager or supervisor? How are you possibly going to be able to handle minor personnel conflicts or provide guidance during the training period? It comes across as a complete lack of basic managerial skills.
Okay, but basic interpersonal skills are a prerequisite for anybody in a senior or team lead position, or any position that will involve code reviews.
I'm sympathetic to how awkward it can feel to provide honest feedback to a candidate, but look: we're all people here. I think we forget that sometimes when we're assembling hiring processes. As a candidate, you need some kind of feedback mechanism that allows you to improve even if you're not a good fit for a particular organization. And if you're involved in the hiring process in any way, you ought to be equipped to handle that.
> you need some kind of feedback mechanism that allows you to improve even if you're not a good fit for a particular organization
"Need". That is a strong term. I disagree. It would be nice, but it is not a need.
This topic has been discussed ad nauseam on HN. In most companies, there is specific company policy that prohibits providing feedback to candidates. There is literally no upside for these companies to provide feedback to candidates that they reject (except Fake/Feel-Good Internet Points, only redeemable on HN forums). Really: There is no way around it, no matter how many tears are spilled about it on HN.
This is simply a defense of bad policy couched in unnecessarily dehumanizing language.
There is widespread resentment of this and many other common hiring practices in the tech sector, and that is further impacting both the quality of candidates as well as employee motivation and satisfaction. The upside for companies is higher quality candidates whose first experience with the company is a hiring process that makes the candidate want to work there.
> In most companies, there is specific company policy that prohibits providing feedback to candidates. There is literally no upside for these companies to provide feedback to candidates that they reject
This is the long and short of it.
In the US at least, discrimination laws are expansive. You can -very- easily end up saying something that violates this and putting your company at risk, no matter how good hearted you were attempting to be.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I deliberately ask how I did because it helps me weed out interviewers who think like this. Not so much "how did I do?" as "now we're close to the end of the interview, do you think we're a good fit for each other?" I give my own feedback and talk honestly about points of friction.
I interview pretty well, but if I go into an interview with a company that wants hungry hustlers and I've spent the whole interview talking about kindness and team spirit, or if you think I don't know enough pl/pgsql to deal with your gnarly legacy backend, or I'm getting the vibe that none of the engineers seem to like working here, then we need to speak honestly about that.
No need. Just walk away. Remember: You are interviewing them, just as they are interviewing you. Any company worth its weight will not allow red flags to leak into the interview process, e.g., "getting the vibe that none of the engineers seem to like working here". So many times, I have reached the final round of an interview process, met the senior manager... and thought: "Barf, I don't want to work for that person. What a waste of my time."
I know I'm interviewing them. That's why we need to talk.
If they wanted to hire me enough to interview me, but at the end of a half-day of interviewing I'm going to walk away without a job, then they need to rewrite their position description so I know not to apply, deal with their morale problem, or directly ask me how much PL/pgSQL I've done. We both stand to benefit from talking about how the interview went.
Not to mention there are legal liabilities with sharing interview performance with candidates. "Oh but the interviewers told me I did extremely well on their interviews. Therefore it must be the case that I was rejected because of ${protected attribute X}."
> What if you did terribly and I wouldn't hire you in a million years? Do you really want me to tell you that?
Yes, that sounds like extremely valuable feedback.
Why do you suppose asking a question like that shows narcissism? To me it shows a willingness to infest feedback to improve.
I will add the caveat that if someone asked me that in an interview I would likely give a non-answer because I’m not totally sure what all I’m even allowed to say.
A simple request for feedback is not evidence of narcissism or lack of empathy. Could be anxiety. Could be curiosity. Could be zeal. Could be any number of things. It's certainly not an "extreme lack of decorum" though.
It's okay to avoid giving feedback if you don't want to. I can think of a few ways to answer that question in a neutral or positive fashion to defuse the situation and legally protect the company.
Really?? I always appreciated candidates that would ask that at the end - being willing to step aside from the pretense of professionalism to ask a real question and listen to my answer is a signal to me that this is someone who is willing to be real with me, not pretentious or perfunctory.
I do get what you’re saying, but I disagree, there is a good answer; and as is often the case, it’s an honest one.
In other words, the author did a good job but failed because there was an implicit requirement to not try very hard.
> Part of the assignment is using judgment and working in ambiguity.
If trying to clarify requirements is not what they wanted here, they may as well ask candidates to pick a number between 1 and 10 and reject anyone who guesses wrong.
> overkill on the infra and polish
I know its an opinion, but hard disagree on both. Take home tests are intended to show off your ability. Without specific guidance, how can anyone guess how much showing off is expected?
Polish is only bad if it stops you from delivering. Rejecting something that was delivered for being "too polished" feels like you are saying someone did too good of a job.
---
In my opinion tests with vague requirements like this are more likely to be a different way of rejecting people who are not a "culture fit".
The author did a bunch of things that were irrelevant to the product (deploying to Fargate using Pulumi) while not delivering on the basic features that they were asked for ("terminal inspired email client"). If you watch the video it’s a super basic web app that has nothing to do with the TUI apps Kagi named you should use as inspiration. There’s no drafts. No CC or BCC field. No folders or labels (including sent or trash!). No replies. No threads. No shortcuts. There’s not even an indication of whether an email has been read or not. In terms of features it is very very very barebones, and I’m sure if you asked a few users all or most of these would be table stakes. Yes we can agree that "terminal inspired" is very open to interpretation, but spend a few minutes using the apps they gave as reference and you should be able to come up with a long list of features besides "send & receive email", which is the main thing they demonstrated. I get this is a short challenge, so pick a handful of things that are quick to implement and focus on those (like unread markers). You can even say this is a backend position so the UI shouldn’t matter, so then just implement them in the backend and make the simplest UI for it you can! They certainly "delivered" a product but I would not call it polished, and I would not confidently say this was a "culture fit" rejection - I see plenty of other reasons
I think it's pretty obvious to figure out how much polish is "too much". This is a business. Engineers time is limited. Was the time you spent on that more valuable than the alternative? I'm leaving the question of what the alternative was ambiguous on purpose.
What they were looking at was not the code, but the attitude. They likely don't want an engineer with a propensity to do too much, unless it's a 100x coder who can do "too much" with a lightning speed. Usually they want he candidate to show the ability to quickly do as much as needed, and not more, and, crucially, to understand how much is needed.
So yes, this is a culture fit test as much (if not more) as a design and coding test. Some people who are great at design and coding would fail it, and it's how this filter is intended to work.
Yes, I needed a ridiculous number, a picture of the coding faculty so strong that writing twice as much code as the task really needs is hardly even noticeable.
IMHO, the author's approach of validating his ideas mirrors modern engineering workflows. Coders don't spend hours independently coding an MR and then getting feedback from prod, tech leads, QA, and UX after the feature is "finished."
Work environments that "code first, review later" have been some of the most toxic in my career. It really sucks when you spend days building a feature only to find its not wanted. Which is why explaining the feature in English and getting approvals is the industry standard for shipping projects.
This candidate followed modern software practices that healthy workplaces follow.
(I'm also a hiring manager at a 1k+ engineer company).
I've worked in places with very strong product management, where every single detail must be approved by a PM. I've also worked in places where engineer has a lot of autonomy - "John from FOO dept is spending too much time wrangling the daily data updates. Can you help him, here is his email? Our higher-ups allocated two weeks for that, but we can extend this if needed." - and from then on, you are in full control of the design and implementation, subject to your team's rules (because no one wants a system with bus factor of 1).
For me, I've found that the latter places are much nicer to work in. The interview question seem to focus on latter situation too.
I don't know about everyone else, but as a dev who is currently looking for a job I simply cannot afford to devote a week of unpaid work to each application. It's not sustainable to say the least. Especially when I'm told by some people that getting rejected means I didn't spend enough time on the solution.
I found myself thinking the same thing - perhaps came from a bigger/more established company. Reminded me of the PRD/ERD process. And that's not necessarily bad.
But from my experience, the two types look at each other like the other is insane. If you write up an ERD at a scrappy 6 person startup, everyone is going to think you waste time.
Conversely, if you join a larger team with established processes and begin flinging code at the wall unabated, people are going to think you're reckless and possibly inexperienced.
> (I'm also a hiring manager at a 1k+ engineer company).
I'm not a hiring manager, and I have worked at five different companies with at least 10K engineers. All of them were "code first, review later". All five companies were very profitable and technology was a core component to their commercial success.
Exactly. The position they are hiring for is not that of a coder; coding is just one of the skills the position requires, maybe not even the most important.
As a hirer, the kind of takehome assignment I like to give is one that:
* Can be completed in 30 minutes by a skilled programmer
* Has clear evaluation criteria, both objective and subjective
* Has multiple approaches that require making different tradeoffs
And of course, only give it to some candidates where the result will be make-or-break.
As someone who took one of these broad take-home assignments my last time looking for a job, I failed a the assignment for a job I was overqualified for because I was told I wasn't able to divine what parts of the extremely broad assignment I would be graded on.
I doubt I will be in a position where I get a job that isn't a referral for the rest of my career, but it really turned me off of these kinds of assignments, both taking and giving them.
Very curious: how do you deal with AI answers for those?
While writing my questions (and testing in my teammates), I found that "can be completed in 30 minutes by a skilled programmer" very often means "can be completed almost automatically by AI", and that AI will give explanations too, that interviewer could repeat during code review phase.
Every step in the process is a filter. You can ask them not to use AI and trust, you can ask them what tools they used (including AI) and for what part, you can ask the candidate to screen record them programming their solution and forbid using AI, you can ask them about their solution in a followup interview, etc.
It's kind of up to what you're filtering for, and how much you trust the candidate at that part of the process, and how you follow up after hiring.
I think the huge proposal (after several rounds of questions) was what sunk him. The instructions did not request a proposal, and submitting one, especially one that detailed, conveyed “OP cannot take the initiative and proceed with work without seeking approval beforehand.” The project was about asking a few questions, listing a few assumptions, and giving yourself approval to confidently dive in and build something ambiguous. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think the code mattered after that email was sent. The company should have just ended it there without him wasting his time building the assignment.
That's the blogger's point. The hiring manager saw the proposal, knew that wasn't what he wanted, and then proceeded to waste an entire week of the candidate's time while he was looking for income.
Just to be clear, this wasn't my advice, it was written into the task description -
This project tests your ability not only to code, but to deal with ambiguity and open-endedness
I'm not sure how I feel about that to be honest. On one hand I get what they're shooting for in general by saying that. On the other, they're going to have some preconceived notion of what they want, and it's a bit of luck if you come close to that.
> And don't hesitate to tell us if you have any questions!
I personally have no problem dealing with "ambiguity and open-endedness" (and, in fact, enjoy it!), but my solution to this problem at every job that has had this issue is: talk to people and understand the problem.
Attempting to "mind-read" is the worst solution to ambiguity, and, in practice, nearly always leads to disaster.
This is the problem. Your guess is different from the author's guess, because nothing is explicitly stated.
For others who did not click the link, the explicit requirements are:
> - Email client can either be in the terminal (i.e. a TUI) or a web app
> - Should have basic email viewing + sending functionality
> - Can use a fake backend (DB, in-memory, etc) or real IMAP/POP/JMAP/etc backend
> - Does not have to handle rich text messages, just plaintext
> Your implementation should take inspiration from existing terminal email tools like aerc, mutt, or even something like himalaya.
It should feel fast and intuitive, and you can choose which email flows you'd like to implement.
The word "keyboard" does not appear. Inspiration from X, Y, and Z is entirely subjective, and you should not be punished for not reading the interviewer's mind.
Is it not clear that every single one of the example apps the spec cites are text-based UIs, as in curses-style, monospace text, and (yes) keyboard-driven?
My takeaway from that is that if you don't make an app that is (quote) "in the terminal (i.e. a TUI)" but choose to make a web app, then it should look at act like a TUI.
>This is two business days later than the two-week mark since you sent me your first email.
With no accompanying personal reason for the delay, it's already a rejection in my books. The objective was to design an appropriate solution within the deadline.
My first though on looking at the code, and then on demo video was: wow, it took that person a solid week to write a web app with two pages.. all while missing the most basic email features, like an ability to opening a message (and not just show full text of mail bodies on one page).
Later on I read the requirements... This person applied to a position named "Email Backend Engineer" but they actually used a third-party product (postmark + turso) for email backend! They also clearly don't think about email too much - the basic stuff, like plaintext email formatting, viewing, and folders (at least inbox + outbox) are simply missing; while there are optional features, like login screen, admin page and backend framework. And backend database does not even containing a email headers map!
That person might be a great engineer, but I don't think they would be a good fit for that specific position. I'd reject them as well.
(A separate question is that hiring manager's second response... We don't do take-home interviews, but I imagine I'd be stumped by a proposal like that, it seems so irregular in a take-home assignment. Still, I can see how the candidate took that response for an approval... perhaps a next candidate would get an extra sentence perhaps something like "actual problem grading would depend on the code quality, number of features implemented, and how close those are to requirements and job description")
Update: read original job description and not just the except from the blog. That person surely omitted some stuff in their blog! the original title was:
"The project is to build a minimal, terminal-inspired email client"
it gave examples:
"Your implementation should take inspiration from existing terminal email tools like aerc, mutt, or even something like himalaya."
wow! that's 100% no hire, serious inability to read the requirements.
- Email client can either be in the terminal (i.e. a TUI) or a web app
- Should have basic email viewing + sending functionality
Seems like both were more than met to me.
Inspiration from existing tools is subjective. I would have assumed that spending time on the UI for a backend position was not the best way to show off my skills in a take home test.
The 2nd line of assignment, "The project is to build a minimal, terminal-inspired email client".
I agree that "inspiration" can be subjective, but in this particular case the solution was so much off that it'd be hard to argue otherwise. There is nothing terminal-like in it, and the tool is not usable as an email client either. Instead of doing login screens and user management, author should have made a page to view individual email or added folder (just 3, inbox/sent/trash, would already be a great improvement)
And if you want to ignore the requirements and work off position description... the position is titled "Email Backend Engineer", and the candidate's solution offloads actual email operations (storage, transfer) to third-party services. I suspect that even if candidate provided the same UX, but would have backed it with SMTP, IMAP, TCP/IP (not via http library), DNS MX lookup, resilient storage etc... then they might have passed.
But author failed to do either serious front-end work (required by question) or serious back-end work (required by job posting), so result was entirely predictable.
Take home assessments can be a valuable part of an interview process but they absolutely need a time limit. I think 2-3 hours is going to give you all the information you need, unless what you're selecting for is new grads with no dependents, hobbies, or responsibilities.
If this had been limited to 3 hours then the worst case is that the candidate would have lost 3 hours, but far more likely is that they would have come up with an entirely different proposal and/or solution that was appropriate for that timeline, and that extra information would have made it clearer what the company was looking for.
The other point I'd always encourage applicants to confirm is: are you looking for any answer, or are you looking for a good answer. Some take-home tests are purely about passing a test suite and how you manage it doesn't matter, some would prefer that you meet 80% of the requirements but write better code. I've seen applicants do the wrong thing on both sides of this.
To me, as someone who hires and gives candidates take home assignments, Kagi’s assignment is huge and disrespectful of the candidate’s time. Surely they’re (probably unintentionally) filtering for candidates that have a lot of time to waste on projects like this — while people who are busy (the kind of people you want) will pass.
Surely there must be other ways to have an idea on a candidate’s skills.
In our case, hiring people with data engineering skills, we just ask of them a simple ETL challenge (pull data from zip file, transform it, insert into any database). We leave ambiguities in there and there are some Easter eggs in the dataset (eg null values where you would not expect it, incorrectly formatted CSV) that we use to evaluate how well a candidate can perform.
We timebox it at 4 hours, but don’t give guidance in case they run out of time, that’s a good suggestion.
During a follow up call, we review the code together and we’ll ask them questions on how to improve the code (“what if the dataset doesn’t fit in memory”, etc), which is what the actual technical assessment is. At that point they should already feel somewhat comfortable with the problem domain, and you can assess their real skills.
I agree about Kagi, but about your process wanted to ask: do you really feel like having them write the code as a take-home task adds any signal to the process?
At my current gig we do a 1-hour pair programming kind of thing, where we video-chat and watch the candidate work on a small, straightforward task. And as the interviewer I watch how they use the tools, where they go for docs, do they read the requirements, how do they test, etc. By the end I always feel like I have a strong picture of their ability, and the whole thing is capped at 90 minutes for both sides (adding time for their questions).
If the candidate's code was written offline beforehand, I'd have no idea whether it was theirs, whether it came from a friend or chatGPT, whether it took ten minutes or ten hours, etc. Sure I could try to suss out those things during discussion, but isn't it better to observe directly?
The solution to this problem ultimately needs to be a regulatory one.
People should be paid for the time they spend in interviews.
You make that the law and this ambiguous hoop jumping bullshit goes away real fast. Companies will optimize for cost instead of dumping cost onto the prospective employees.
This is good for the economy because it forces companies to innovate and optimize the interview process and it saves hundreds hours of totally economically unproductive time on the part of candidates.
That's basically my feeling too. No one would ask for a maid to clean their house free for 4 hours, in order to decide if they want to hire her long term. And that's precisely what hiring managers have been getting away with for decades, because no one is pushing back. The managers are essentially abusing their power. It's all about abuse of power and utter arrogance.
But if you're unable to determine if someone has this knowledge via a phone call, instead of 4 hours of their work without you even being present, then that failing is on you, not them. If you can't judge someone's knowledge by asking questions, then you don't know how to come up with the right questions. Again that's on you. The only thing a 4-hr take home test will filter for is desperation. You'll get the most desperate candidates, and you'll do so by wasting days and days of people's time once you add it all up. It's just utterly disrespectful to demand these silly homework problems. I always take it that way. I take it personally, tbh. I find it absolutely insulting to even be asked and I simply refuse.
How do you know that interviewees aren't spending more time on it?
Because you can't guarantee all candidates are spending the same amount of time, it becomes a game theory problem where the candidates will typically lose in some form. In many cases, the right answer is to spend extra time making a really polished (but not too polished!) solution and pretend like you stayed in the time limit. And every candidate is either a) doing that, or at least b) worried that their competition is doing that.
Even if we ignore that dynamic, 3 hours is a long ass time for a candidate to spend when they're not even sure they'll get to talk to another human about it.
In a 1-hour interview, you can run a candidate through a programming exercise and be guaranteed they're not wasting extra time on it. And if they happen to prefer doing take home assessments, you can always let them send you an updated answer later. (But often by the time a candidate asks me if they can do that, I've already developed a favorable view of their skills and can tell them, "go for it if you want, but you've already 'passed' my test.")
By keeping the candidate-interviewer time investment the same, you guarantee that you're respecting the candidate's time as you would your own (because you're sitting there with them.) I can help them skip over the parts I'm not interested in (e.g., by feeding them info they'd be able to find via search or telling them not to worry about certain details.)
If a hiring manager doesn't respect their candidates' time, how likely are they to respect their employees' time?
Yep, this is what I am taking from this thread: Next time I am given a take-home, I am going to ask them to promise, that I will get to talk to a human about it. They can of course straigh-ass lie about it, and I am sure I will run into such abysmal behavior at some point.
> How do you know that interviewees aren't spending more time on it?
In some cases we roughly timed it, scheduling an email for a time the candidate wanted and asked them to return it 3 hours later. In some cases we just treated it as an honour system. We made it clear that the task was intended to take about that much time and that spending more time was not allowed/encouraged.
In reality, we found that good candidates took ~1-2h, and in some cases where candidates spent a lot longer and owned up to it, we found no improvements. In one case a candidate submitted at 3h and then again at 8, and we marked the 8h version 1 mark lower.
I agree with the author that live code reviews are much better than live coding, but if companies insist on a live coding exercise: let me bring my laptop and mouse leave the room for 45 minutes and come back when we can talk about what I built.
I understand that their responses were very minimal and not helpful, but it clearly says in the requirements to make a "terminal-inspired" email client. However, in the video you shared [1] I see a somewhat generic email web app, with nothing particularly "terminal-inspired". Considering the fact that they wanted either a real TUI or a webapp, I'm pretty sure that the web app should've also been "terminal-inspired". Am I missing something? I'm not trying to necessarily criticize you, perhaps I just misunderstood the requirements.
Edit: I've actually checked the full requirements page, and they explicitly say this in "Inspiration":
> Your implementation should take inspiration from existing terminal email tools like aerc, mutt, or even something like himalaya.
Yeah, a clearer explanation in the rejection email would have been nice, or perhaps even a warning in response to the proposal (though it's not 100% clear from the proposal alone that OP would be going down a path that ignores that part of the assignment.) But the prompt explicitly lists other terminal clients as the inspiration.
Also, the prompt for a terminal client really changes what they're testing! Email web UIs have been a known quantity for years. But the UX of a terminal client is still something that's not "solved." I suspect the rubric for the question has large sections about how they decide to make a terminal client that OP's submission doesn't address at all
Also they seem to put emphasis on Go programming, which takes < 20 lines to get a cli running so not sure why they chose a browser GUI, which is arguably much more work.
I did a recent round of interviews and this experience closely mirrors mine (at multiple places). Delivered an exceptional solution to the problem only to be rejected without a discussion about the delivered project. I have been on the hiring end of take-homes multiple times and firmly believe that if you ask someone to do a take-home assignment you must follow up with a chat about the code. Apparently that's not the case at most places.
If you're asked to do a take home, I highly recommend confirming that there will be a follow up regardless of the assessment, and if they do not agree to this, do not do the "home work". The honest truth is that most of the teams hiring are of pretty low quality and therefore implementing a good solution is a negative because the team hiring is not at your level (which is a frustrating reason for being rejected).
I'm an early adopter of Kagi and am now planning on cancelling my account over of this. Completely unacceptable. If you don't have time to chat with a candidate about their work, don't ask them to do the work in the first place.
> I have been on the hiring end of take-homes multiple times and firmly believe that if you ask someone to do a take-home assignment you must follow up with a chat about the code.
That’s actually a very valid point. Take-home assignments not only require a significant amount of effort from the person administering them but also from the interviewer (or rather, the hiring team). After investing the time and effort in reviewing a project, it’s reasonable to expect feedback/a response back if requested.
However, we must also acknowledge certain realities. If there are 20 solid candidates for a single open position, many capable individuals will be rejected. This doesn’t imply that they were inadequate or even “failed.” It’s simply a reality of life.
Now to be asked to justify why a hiring manager picked A and not B, legally speaking, cannot be that I had to pick one out of the amazing candidates, so I picked one. The legally correct response (unfortunately) is to get nit picky and find faults where none really exists. At least, that has been my observation in how corporate America likes to operate. And last time I checked, Kagi is based out of Palo Alto.
> if there are 20 excellent responses for a single open position, many capable individuals will be rejected.
I would never ask 20 people to do a take-home assignment. There are so many better ways to test team fit before asking someone to commit serious, unpaid, time to a project. Historically speaking a 30 minute chat with someone provides a surprisingly good amount of information to anyone experienced in hiring.
But if you want to commit 20 people to take-home assignments, then block off 20 hours next week for 1-on-1s to chat with them about those assignments. If that sounds like too much, then don't find a better way to filter down the number of people doing homework until it feels manageable.
I agree. The company should have either published clear guidelines on how the project would be assessed or provided some feedback on what could have been done better. It's okay to fail an assignment, but it's not acceptable to waste someone's time without offering anything in return. There are many companies, including pop startups, that handle this well.
did they really deliver "exceptional solution" though?
Their solution seems to be nothing like "a minimal, terminal-inspired email client", and OP completely ignored the references to tools they were told to "take inspiration from"
When there is such bad misunderstanding of the requirements, I'd not waste time on the discussion either.
There was able opportunity for the hiring manager to point that out if that were the case. They specify questions where encouraged and then completely ignored the questions. If the HM doesn't have time to respond, then maybe take-home as first filter is not a good decision.
Were there? The question clearly said, "build a minimal, terminal-inspired email client" and "take inspiration from existing terminal email tools like aerc, mutt". Candidate completely ignored that part and built a tool which is nothing like terminal email at all.
Would any of their emails give a hiring manager idea that the candidate failed to understand the assignment in such a gross way?
Email 1, "What kind of extra feature do you value highly"
Interviewer thinks: "UX improvement could be VI-like megacommands, "pretty UI" must mean creative use of colors and font attributes, privacy-related must be encryption at rest... It's all good, we are happy to look at all of those!"
Email 2, "A webapp with golang accessible online, deployed through AWS using ECS Fargate, with SSL (https), integrated with an email sender provider, with authentication through a login screen, with the ability to send emails through a form, and displaying incoming emails in the user interface."
Interviewer thinks: "OK, that's a lot of implementation details.. Not sure why candidate feels the need to confirm that, but nothing in the list above will be graded as a negative. The important things we care about are that it's inspired by terminal apps like mutt, and that "it should feel fast and intuitive" and one can totally do that using technologies above"
Without seeing the screenshots/mockups, how would one even guess that the candidate was so off?
// Create a context variable that inherits from a parent, and sets the value "test".
// Create a context key for the theme.
ctx, err := getEmails(pb, e)
First line is very weird, unrelated to the task. Maybe copy-paste from a sample in a blog post? Anyway not paying attention to leave it in.
Wording in the second line is not consistent with third.
I’d stop my review there. Lack of attention to detail. Author does not demonstrate an ability to think clearly.
The problem in the story is not that the candidate was rejected but that the process is largely disrespectful by asking for a lot of unpaid time to implement some project without clear guidelines or giving valuable feedback.
The author wasted a significant amount of his own time, and the hiring manager’s time with all the questions, the proposal, etc.
Even after asking for all this clarity, he failed to do what was originally asked. If asking for all those details, you have to at least do the basics of what was asked.
He failed on multiple fronts here, and even wrote an entire blog post without realizing it. It seems like Kagi did the right thing by not hiring him, if we’re being brutally honest. If he would re-read the original ask with a fresh set of eyes, then look at his final product and all the communication, the feedback should go without saying. When someone misses the mark by that much, it’s takes a lot of effort to try and say it nicely to soften the blow, as a company would want to do. Multiply this by however many people applied, and there just aren’t enough hours in the day.
Now that he’s written this blog post, I wonder if he’ll have more trouble even getting past the first gate of hiring processes, as other companies won’t want to sign on to have a blog post trying to drag them through the mud over a rejection. That shows more questionable judgement.
This is a classic case of misreading the subtext. They want you to be independent and able to create your own work and goals. The ambiguity of the take home task is not there for you to interrogate over multiple emails, rather its an open palette for you to show how you take a relatively broad task and produce your own interrogation of the problem space.
As someone who works at a university this is very reminiscent of students who don't understand the assignment then complain when they get an unexpected mark.
I completely agree. The assigment seems to be looking for someone who will make as minimaly clever functional solution as possible. Someone who will dare to “be lazy” in interview where they want to impress.
This is not that common trait. But if your company has more prototype driven approach with quick “experiment” releases some people are just very bad fit and thats bad for everyone.
There is probably a candidate that thought for 10 minutes - what best can be done in 60min. They probably leveraged some http auth and forms, run that through tiny go backend, sent it with brief email. And they most likely looked a lot better in the process.
That would maybe be a valid point if the take home set any context beyond "it's an R&D project" and "minimal".
What do you want to achieve here, is this a throwaway prototype or would a user ever see this? Am I going to get picked on for imperfect UX or do you just want to see something. It becomes an exercise in guessing the reviewers sensibilities.
When I see instructions that say “This project tests your ability not only to code, but to deal with ambiguity and open-endedness”, it actually means either a) this exercise has been so poorly conceived that we didn’t bother with a rubric or b) the work environment is so chaotic, we never clearly define specs or requirements for anything.
That, and the instruction to simultaneously “show off your skills” and deliver a pragmatic functional solution are completely at odds. Good simple solutions aren’t flashy.
To me, take-homes that have UI or API integrations are a bit of a red flag, because UI code (for most roles) is relatively boring, and API integrations are a lot of faff with not much signal. Cool you can make an HTTP request, cool you've got a basic CRUD editing setup. It's a lot of code that takes a lot of time and tells me almost nothing about how you code, hell, AI tools will happily generate these things in no time and at a pretty good quality.
What I want to see is an engineer implement an awkward bit of business logic. Does it become a million nested if statements and a "here be dragons" comment at the top, or do they identify the right patterns and build something that I can reason about when reading the code? This is far more valuable in the job, more signal in the interview, and much harder for AI to get right. It also takes less time.
I’ve seen a few that let you fork a repo with all that boilerplate set up and you just have a few stubbed methods to fill out, and that seems reasonable. But going from 0->1 on an app is so much grunt work and I doubt the reviewers would even look into all of it
I would say that's reasonable, although it again sorta depends on the stubbed methods and what you're trying to figure out from them, and I'd question the necessity of the boilerplate - can't you just implement the methods?
Can I ask you and everyone else - why do AI is so good at UI/CRUD apps and terrible at business logic?
I've been caught with this few times now. Spend ages trying to coerce AI to solve logic problem and end up just manually solving it myself. Whereas UIs are so good and usually near perfect from first prompt. I suspect it's the weak prompt. I need to learn and solve this before my brain completely atrophies (there must be Anthropic joke here somewhere hehe).
I doubt it's prompting. I think the issue is more likely that UI code is often similar, has a lot of examples online, and often doesn't require understanding data flow. This is why LLMs are great at "boring" React components, because they don't actually understand the flow of the data, but they don't need to.
Business logic on the other hand is much more likely to be novel in some way, there are likely fewer similar examples for rules to be learnt from, etc.
Obviously this is all gradations, LLMs can manage some business logic and mess up some UIs (they can't "see" the UI which doesn't help!), but this is my experience of them and fits with my understanding of the technology.
> we never clearly define specs or requirements for anything.
I mean, what if part of the role that’s being hired for is to help people clearly define the specs and requirements? I consider that a big part of what it means to be a senior software engineer.
Maybe this exact format isn’t the best way to test for it, but I don’t think “we want to see if someone can deal with ambiguity” means all the work is ambiguous. It might just mean all work needs to go through a process to take it from “ambiguous requirements” to “clearly defined specs”
> what if part of the role that’s being hired for is to help people clearly define the specs and requirements?
Then they should have responded to his questions in email?
I personally love working on projects that are vaguely defined because it means getting to interact with people and understanding the heart of the problem. My favorite roles have involved reaching out to non-technical people and figuring out how to solve their problem. Often it's not the solution they even initially asked for.
But if your role is to guess about vague specs with no communication, then you're going to fail no matter how senior you are.
> I mean, what if part of the role that’s being hired for is to help people clearly define the specs and requirements?
Then I'd expect the interview process to focus on that process, not on the final deliverable. As it stands, the candidate tried to interact with the interviewer by trying to ask for clarification on the requirements, then making a detailed proposal, and got no actionable feedback from either.
Could one do a "terminal inspired, mutt-like email client" that completely satisfies OP's proposal (web-based, TEMPL, pocketbase, pulumi, etc...)? Sure, it would be possible. None of those are _required_ for the submission but you can totally use them if you wanted to. So the interviewer probably thought, "hey this person is going all out", and was absolutely honest in saying "Looking forward to receiving your submission"
I cannot really blame the interviewer for not reminding the candidate that they should actually follow the requirements, in addition to all the optional stuff they mentioned in their spec.
It's a start-up with a lot of different projects. It is expected that the work environment would be chaotic. People who look for a no-surprises type of work week should probably not apply to such a kind of workplace.
> Good simple solutions aren’t flashy.
Maybe showing off your skills is making a good and simple solution?
Sure, the work is chaotic. But why would the interview process need to be chaotic? You want to get the best signals of ability that you can, and one thing you can do to help that is to make sure that you’ve given an assignment that will be evaluated consistently on your end and understood uniformly by the participants
> Sure, the work is chaotic. But why would the interview process need to be chaotic?
Because the interview is meant to measure how well someone would perform on the work?
> You want to get the best signals of ability that you can, and one thing you can do to help that is to make sure that you’ve given an assignment that will be evaluated consistently on your end and understood uniformly by the participants
Well sure, all else being equal, but if the cost of consistency is an assignment that doesn't reflect the actual work environment then that may outweigh the benefit.
But why conflate “technical skill assessment” and “ambiguity handling” into one big stressful test?
Doing two small tests toy can measure each skill independently
A clear coding test to get technical skill and then some in person requirements gathering exercise or something to measure ambiguity handling.
You’ll get better insight into their abilities with less effort for the interviewee AND the interviewer (if the startup is really that chaotic, do you really think they are doing a careful code review on a zillion different bespoke takehomes?)
I just can’t get past the fact that he didn’t even deliver on the core deliverable of “ The project is to build a minimal, terminal-inspired email client”. Nothing about the demo I watched on YouTube looked “terminal-inspired”
As an engineering interviewer I feel the urge to comment. I like neither leet code, nor home assignments. They are both time consuming and provide you with a little information.
But having said this I would have likely rejected the author too. Kagi Search is a startup, these folks are typically looking for fast moving, pragmatic optimists who can strike the breadth - depth balance.
We used to have a colleague. They would collect the inputs, close themselves for a few days, come up with a solution only to learn that reqs changed in the meantime. It was not pleasant experience for anyone.
Building a concrete, working, minimum-viable solution from ambiguous requirements: that's the point of the exercise. That's what hiring managers want in candidates because those candidates end up being good at building a concrete, working solutions from ambiguous requirements. Which is every software project ever. Although the AI Age has unquestionably changed the efficacy of this kind of candidate screening, that is orthogonal to this discussion. For many years it has been one of the most-effective ways to screen for the ability to build concrete, working solutions from ambiguous requirements. Which is every software project ever. So it's no surprise it persists.
Yes, software is full of ambiguities but there are methods we use to handle them. OP emailed an outline wanting feedback, as any team player would do to iron out ambiguities, and received a meaningless reply. I think it's safe to say companies don't want their engineers going into a corner never to be seen again for 2 weeks, which is what this interview process recreates.
OP's proposal was only describing irrelevant stuff (the backend technologies) and was completely silent on on stuff that mattered (demonstrating how actual RFC822 email works, mutt-inspired UI). It was therefore accepted without comments, as there were no "substance" to comment on.
That is often a problem with proposals/design docs in general. In the real job, if proposal is actually required, it would be sent it back with "please add details on UX and how you are going to store email headers". In this case, the proposal was explicitly _not_ required though, so interviewers did not want to ask for more details on the optional document. They checked what was written there, found no problems, and approved it.
OP didn't take into account the (great) asymmetry between themselves and the hiring manager, then built an entire lament on that. Dealing with this job req is likely just one of many day-to-day responsibilities the HM has and frankly I'm impressed they responded with three whole sentences. One method we can use to handle such ambiguity is to "make your best judgement" based on your skills, knowledge and experience (things that are tested for in the hiring process, incidentally), because often you may not get the answer you want or expect if any at all.
They explicitly asked for a minimal, terminal-inspired email client for their Email Backend Engineer role. OP built a ton of infrastructure, created a generic web app that has no semblance of terminal inspiration as far as I can tell, and outsourced the backend to third party APIs.
Concrete and working? Technically, yes. This would have been an excellent submission for a different assignment and role. But it doesn't seem to suit the specifications for this one.
Not what was expected of them. I included "minimum-viable" in my original reply for a specific reason: to counter OP's lament that they lost out to a simpler solution.
If you are asked to implement X and instead you take extra time and come back with X+Y+Z, what have you done? Wasted time e.g. money. Companies really hate wasting money.
So if in your candidate project you demonstrate a propensity for bike-shedding any task, that's gonna be a big red flag.
I have done this dance a few times. My learning about interview assignments is review the written grading rubric before reading anything else. If the grading criteria lacks specificity then don’t do the assignment. If there is no provided grading rubric in advance then don’t do the assessment.
Man this sounds rough. I had a somewhat similar experience a while back but instead of going back and forth trying to nail down requirements, I went down this spiral of wondering if the lack of clarity wwas part of some kind of meta-test.
"Do they want to see if I can build something with as little guidance as possible?"
"Do they want me to push for more requirements like I would on a real project?"
"If I build something cool but totally off from what they expected will that make me look better or worse?"
"Or are they just trying to weed out the people that can't code at all?"
In the end I didn't get a follow-up interview and they refused to give me any feedback on how I could have done better on the take-home assessment.
Back to the OP:
One such example would be to do a live code review. This could be done asynchronously or synchronously. It could allow actually talking through topics and issues that relate to the challenges in a real software project. This would allow to surface much more of the knowledge in an experienced software engineer.
I worked with a lot of engineers in my 40+ year engineering career. One thing that most engineers don't like is ambiguity. I didn't like it either, until mid career when I was thrown into an environment where the customers didn't really know what they wanted, and it was impossible to explore all of the solution space within time and budget constraints. I ended up thriving in this environment, but I watched as many qualified and experienced engineers floundered and over-stressed themselves. The attrition rate in this environment was about 80%. To survive, I had to use intuition, speculation, and innovation -- things I had not used much in my previous engineering roles. I sadly watched while a lot of really good engineers chose to move on, or were assigned to less relevant roles.
In this case, I perceive that the author (Jose) was looking for firm requirements, and did what he could to elicit them, but the Kagi folks were just looking for innovation and a demonstration of competency. They didn't care as much about the details of the submittal as they did about seeing what the candidate would do without specific requirements.
I feel like Kagi was just asking "Impress us" and OP misunderstood the assignment by actually building a solid project and handling edge cases that no one cared about.
Anyways thanks for writing this up OP, it was an interesting read and I am a Kagi customer so I liked learning about them.
they actually did not... the original requirement said "a minimal, terminal-inspired email client" and "take inspiration from existing terminal email tools like aerc, mutt". This is nowhere near them, not even close.
Not sure why OP makes no mention of this in their blog post - perhaps they thought those parts were unimportant? In which case I am not surprised at the results.
The project was well made, but my read on it was that they wanted to be shown something interesting. Even if it wasn't as well made of polished, I got the impression they would have preferred something "fun" or imaginative.
I understand the frustration here. I assume Kagi has a lot of candidates and is trying to identify the best ones for handling ambiguity. While I can appreciate the interviewee’s desire for more information or a rubric, it might potentially hurt the effectiveness of the take-home assignment.
During my college days, I had an on-campus interview with Microsoft that served as an assessment for whether I would be eligible for more in-person interviews in Seattle. The interview question was open-ended: “I would like you to design an alarm clock.” It seemed like an unusual open-ended question that prompted me to consider several critical factors, such as the intended audience, physicality, visibility, and audibility. By considering these factors and not immediately presenting a solution, the interview team informed me that I had passed the test. If they had provided me with more specific instructions or guidelines before the interview, they might have missed a signal that was important to them.
Unfortunately, I did not advance to the subsequent rounds at Microsoft. I interviewed during the fall semester. While I made it thru the full process, I was informed that I lacked confidence, but wasn’t a no. I was encouraged to reapply in the spring. The initial experience had left me drained and disheartened, so I decided not to pursue a second attempt. I now deeply regret this decision and wish I had given it another chance. If anyone is in a similar situation during their college years, I strongly advise them to avoid making my mistake. Working at a FAANG company could have changed my entire life and career trajectory.
> The initial experience had left me drained and disheartened, so I decided not to pursue a second attempt. I now deeply regret this decision and wish I had given it another chance. If anyone is in a similar situation during their college years, I strongly advise them to avoid making my mistake. Working at a FAANG company could have changed my entire life and career trajectory.
If this applies to you, this is probably the best advice anyone can give to you. I was granted an in-person interview with Microsoft as a freshman back in the early 2000s on account of my stellar GPA. They were the company to work at back then. Unfortunately, I didn't solve the brain teaser. Disheartened, I refused to try again even when they invited me to try again the next few years, and I went with an old dinosaur company instead.
I realized my mistake shortly after starting to work at the dinosaur, and clawed my way tooth and nail into a job at Microsoft. It took me 2 years, but it was the single best thing I have done for my career, and changed the course of my life for the better.
The uncertainty of the assignment and the lack of responsiveness during this week-long unpaid endeavor are inexcusable. Your anecdote strikes me as a totally different process as Kagi's in every possible way.
The problem is not the lack of a "rubric", it is the sheer amount of effort expected from the candidate, especially related to the unprofessionalism of the response. This process is set up to waste a maximum amount of time from candidates without any sort of feedback, and no proof that a reward even existed.
How many dozens of people completed this assignment and got rejected? How many of those assignments were even reviewed by the manager? Did anyone actually get hired? "Giving details would make this less effective for the manager" doesn't begin to excuse this behavior.
Honestly this hiring manager casts a negative light on the entire organization. Do they treat everyone this poorly? Business partners, employees?
> I understand the frustration here. I assume Kagi has a lot of candidates and is trying to identify the best ones for handling ambiguity. While I can appreciate the interviewee’s desire for more information or a rubric, it might potentially hurt the effectiveness of the take-home assignment.
I mean, potentially they failed the real test by asking all the questions - Kagi specifically say they're looking for people who can deal with an open-ended project, and instead of just deciding to do something cool, they seem to spend a lot of time demonstrating that they can't deal with open-endedness by asking a lot of questions and coming up with a detailed spec and asking for approval before starting.
That's not to say what Kagi is doing is good, but it's probably for the best for the candidate that they didn't get the job because it sounds like they wouldn't flourish in that kind of environment (which is better to know before starting a job, instead of starting a job you're going to hate and then burning out or failing probation)
nope, they asked the clarifying question, and got the response that there are no business requirements: "That is part of the assessment itself, see what kind of extra features you can come up if any."
They were failed because they could not deal with the answer, they were not failed for act of asking the question itself.
Actually happens sometimes in my work... Q: "Are there any requirements on the database used?" A: "Nope, just make sure the final system will be able to handle the required load"
This article perfectly highlights the perils of unbounded take home tests.
A timeboxed test for a small group (say, no more than 10) of final candidates can be an excellent differentiator.
The problem here is Kagi have omitted the timebox, so less confident and/or experienced candidates go to the ends of the earth to deliver something that was never going to meet the mark.
Had Kagi said “spend no more than 4 hours on this” - and arguably reduced some of the requirements accordingly - then your man here wouldn’t have wasted a week (!) of his time and Kagi’s.
It’s a real shame that so much time was wasted by the candidate, but the requirements are very clear that “This project tests your ability … to deal with ambiguity and open-endedness”. He’d already dug a hole for himself before he’d started, unfortunately.
I just read half of the article and this is painful to read. They’re asking for something relative simple as a take home, that just requires a little bit of imagination to fill the gaps. Why does the candidate have to be so fussy about details? Do the best you can, fast, and don’t announce you’re gonna be 2 days late for a take home!
To work in a startup you have to embrace the "just do it" mindset, you have a brain to fill the gaps, and you can always iterate later. I’d be more interested in getting the result of the take home quickly, obviously in a working state, but with a documentation explaining trade offs because of lack of time, ideas for future improvements, design choices, stuff not included (ie. a pretty UI) etc.
My take: they’re literally asking for a CRUD (if you decouple well, you can easily replace the DB with SMTP/IMAP later) with basic email features: send (to, cc, bcc), fetch, reply, reply all, transfer. That’s it, you can do it in 2 hours. Add folders, signatures, "send later", authentication, or whatever if you want to show off.
--
Additionally as an experimented Go developer (8 years working with Go as my main language), the code is not great and tbh I would have rejected it if I received this technical test where I work.
In 5 minutes of reading the code:
- lots of commented out test stuff, don't leave that in a take home or I'm gonna assume you'll do the same in your commits
- lots of println but no logging
- relative imports (eg "mymail/app/router"), don't do this
- weird choice of relatively big dependencies (turso? pocketbase? negroni?)
- no architecture or decoupling, everything is in the router
- bad use of the context (getEmails)
- no tests (no need to test everything for a take home but at least some things can be tested)
People say languages are interchangeable and you're never a "xxx" dev, but that's not true. They asked for "Proficiency in Go" and the candidate is not proficient in Go, that would be the number 1 reason for rejection.
I don't mind take home assignments per se, but it seems like there should be a reasonable "this should take this long" time boxing of the thing so people don't waste a ton of time. I've done take-home things a couple of times and they always had "this should take 12 hours" or whatever time amount.
The "simpler" solution part stood out to me though. Given that Kagi was putting little effort into the thing, I wonder if his verbosity/try-hardness might have been a turnoff? Afterall, part of the thing is determining if you want to work with a person, my impression reading his blog post was.. mildly turned off? There was just a bit of desperation to it (which might be from real factors!) but still. That sounds mean and I don't like saying it, that's just kind of the vibe that hit me.
Yeah the company has to give a timebox. It's true that candidates could abuse that, but open ended "impress us" is asking for trouble for both parties. And honestly you should be able to tell of someone spends 20h or something you said to take 4h on.
My take on the proposal: the hiring contact is not the person who wrote or will review the prompt. The candidate sent this long message and I doubt the hirer even read it. That's some nativety on the candidate's part, but the company absolutely should indicate "you're overthinking this"
Take home assignments I feel have the second worst signal for any hiring workflow (behind automated leetcode), you give someone free reign to spend too much time working on something useless without seeing how they actually think or approach problems, you only get a solution at the end, and the solution, especially in open ended problems like these has very loose objective measures. If you want a long term hiring process, I'd just stick to a contract project, though personally just do monitored interviews; I know it takes up more of the hiring managers time, but the amount of signal you get from actually talking and interfacing with a dev is pretty useful
It's a tough lesson, but a good one to learn early: never waste time with interview take home assignments. This is especially true for broad and ambiguous assignments that you will need to sink lots of time into.
What if there are 300 other applicants? What's to disincentivize giving all of them the assignment even when there's only one open position? There is no guarantee that anybody will even clone your repository.
In a live coding interview, the company is committing valuable engineering resources to evaluate you. You have some assurances that they actually want to hire someone and not just get free labor or waste your time.
The author didn't really ask for a code review, though a lot of people imagining themselves in the position of technical hiring manager are already taking care of that.
Anyway: I don't think homework assignments are a valuable mechanism for filtering out candidates. Setting aside shoulds and shouldnots and the ethics of it and everything else, it simply provides a really poor signal for the value of a potential candidate.
Especially today, when something like this particular assignment could just be pasted into any of the popular LLMs and returned as completed within a couple hours.
If an organization wants to hire developers that can take vague project descriptions and convert them into code that may or may not do whatever was in the heads of the people that wrote the project description, then (a) that's a bad practice, but (b) it would be better for everyone involved if you handled this over a video call. If your staff are too busy to do a small pile of video calls with potential candidates over a couple of weeks, then they are too busy to properly onboard a new candidate and you should probably just pack it in. (i.e., they are not too busy to do this.)
If the goal is to hire somebody that knows IMAP, SMTP, POP, etc. inside-and-out and can crank out RFC-compliant code without using any of the third-party libraries that already exist for this sort of thing, then the assignment description should have asked for that.
Homework assignments are an unfortunately common practice, but worst of all, most of them are carelessly designed.
> Especially today, when something like this particular assignment could just be pasted into any of the popular LLMs and returned as completed within a couple hours.
That would have been significantly more in line with what the interviewer was looking for and would have produced better results. It’s a take home test. Use the tools at your disposal.
While I would never do a take-home assignment for a job, I think your expectations are out of line with the current buyers market that has hundreds or thousands of applications for every position.
Your solution is the same old thing thousands of others could produce. They want more than a programmer that knows some languages, tools and libraries.
I think they might give you 10 more minutes of their consideration if you simply produced a command-line program in Go that used sockets to talk protocols to servers.
Although I agree with you regarding leetcode and the lack of feedback on rejections, I honestly don't understand the dislike for take-home assignments. If you truly enjoy coding, you could see them as an excuse to work on a new hobby project.
I went through something very similar — spent several days on a take-home assignment, took it seriously, carefully followed all the instructions and delivered everything.
Then I waited for two weeks, and all I got was a clearly templated response.
The worst part isn’t even the rejection — it’s the vague replies, or no reply at all.It just makes you feel like your time doesn’t matter.
Thank you for writing this. We really do need more people to speak up about these things.
From this post, it seems like the hiring manager is either not the real hiring manager (maybe just an HR agent with this lofty title) or was himself hired without any screening or on the job evaluation for reading and responding to emails (which is a big part, IMO, of any manager) or has multiple roles to play and has no time to devote to hiring.
I feel sorry for the author to have spent more time on actually doing the assignment after that reply.
Very insightful idea here. If you work in software, requirements engineering is a key task. Figuring out “would this deliver for you?” is a key question you hash out with clients.
But the absurdity of take home work like this is the company feels obliged to keep their requirements secret. Thus, by doing the task not knowing if it will be up to spec, you compromise on your most important skill!
Seems ultimately the applicant and company weren't going to be a good fit. An interview is a process where both parties evaluate each other. This applicant set the bar too low for this company and wasted time when the signals were there from the start.
It's totally unreasonable to ask somebody to do so much free work, and the outputs are hard to judge, and likely not the candidate's own work anyhow, so almost entirely pointless.
You had the right idea to begin with - never do take home assignments.
Second - this is the wrong approach. Nothing wrong with writing a small doc. Write it, then implement the necessary features (terminal inspired client that can read and send email), and test it. Literally a cli for read and send, tack on curses or use imgui. Do IMAP/POP/SMTP or emulate it. The job position is for a backend role in the email team.
It’s pretty disrespectful in my opinion. It would be better if they took 90% of their applications and secretly threw them in the garbage than to waste applicants’ time evaluating them on vague criteria.
I have been lucky enough to be able to reject take homes. Next time, I might offer to do them for a flat rate of $200/hour but working for free is something I will avoid.
If it’s going to be used as a screening process, at least give clear guidelines and evaluate it pass/fail.
The requirements for even senior software engineers now are absurd (to say nothing of entry/mid level, which I think may not even exist anymore at most shops).
Companies are abusing their position and we should remember the most egregious of them and avoid them in the future.
The instructions seemed clear. They deliberately set an open ended task, and they want to see how well you independently add valuable features (to a well known format).
I agree that this is an obscene amount of unpaid work but if you're going to do it, you can't ask your hiring contact how to do it. It demonstrates a lack of independence, and that's something they told you they wanted for this role.
This is the same thing that happened to me with an Expensify interview back in 2011. After that, I decided to only do interviews in person, or where the person was on a call with me. Take home tests are not worth the risk of this crap.
I read so many responses (the replies here to this post and to so many other similar posts) of the form
"Oh, I simply refuse to do interviews [of format xyz]. It's just not worth my time..."
I feel like such a worthless piece of crap when I read these. I apply to hundreds of places, and when someone comes along that even wants to talk to me or a miracle happens and I get to any sort of technical round, I simply DON'T HAVE THE OPTION to be turning them away for any reason.
Like, these companies have all the leverage right now, and lots of us have none. Responses like "just tell them no" seem so tone deaf. I guess some of you must be seriously baller, but it seems otherworldly to me.
This is close to how I feel when I read posts on Linkedin "demanding" that companies dispense with some unethical hiring practice (e.g. keeping up job postings for which they are not hiring, rejecting candidates without feedback, endless interview rounds, etc). I'm like, "Dude! The people who are doing this do not give a rat's ass about your preachy Linkedin post. We have no leverage here. Spare me your clickbait."
> We receive a lot of interest and applications for each position at Kagi which makes selection processes is extremely competitive.
This is the real take away. Don't put in outsized effort at companies that are highly subscribed. Everyone prides themselves on being "extremely competitive" and unless it's a FAANG (or well known quiet money fountain like Valve), it's probably not actually worth the effort.
If it's hot on HN, it's highly subscribed -- you just can't expect effort to be valued the same way when there are 10 applicants.
> We normally don’t provide feedback at this stage. We have had other submissions that were simpler and stronger, so we decided to continue forward with these candidates.
This would have been a great place to push and ask for a little more feedback (while being nice as possible since they have nearly no incentive to share more)... How could the other solutions have been simpler and "stronger" (whatever that means? more robust?) -- a few details on what you missed that they were looking for (tests? documentation? CI?) could at least add some value.
All that said -- finding a job is really hard right now. Wish you the best.
Without wanting to be unkind, this author misunderstands the purpose of the exercise, which is to demonstrate to another human being that you can write code that meets the company's standards (as in, would pass PR review), not to ship a fully-functional product solo. The initial email makes it explicit that they don't care if the product even works ("Can use a fake backend") and that the specifications are deliberately open-ended. A little intuition and empathy can tell you that they probably are not going to spend many hours reviewing a complex submission, so the project should optimize for demonstrability of code quality, not completeness.
"I would like to know what kind of response I could expect..." - This is also established from the beginning: you can expect either a "Looks good, let's do some interviews" or a "Sorry, not interested," based on the code you submit. They can't narrow down the choices prior to your submission, because they're grading your submission, not your proposal document with an extensive list of details that they already told you they're mostly ambivalent to.
"So it is funny that my project is so weak, yet it made them update the guidelines to something stricter." - Main character syndrome. As someone who has been on the other side of these kinds of reviews, the far more likely explanation is that they kept getting submissions where the build instructions didn't work (which is not disqualifying by itself; the authors may not be on the same OS as the reviewers) and they got tired of spending time dealing with it.
Ultimately, the failure here was not a technical one but a social one. The author tried very hard to do the thing that it seemed like they were asking for, not the thing they actually wanted. The hiring manager's unwillingness to engage with the proposal doc was itself a form of communication that they were not interested in this level of detail, it was just an implicit one.
It's common for engineer types to want all that kind of communication to be explicit, and I have a lot of sympathy for those folks, but the reality is that teamwork is a skill, and the ability to suss out what a stakeholder actually wants, but isn't saying due to incomplete information and/or office politics, is a reasonable thing to select for. The ambiguity of the prompt is a feature, not a bug: it's kept the author away from a company whose communication style they're not compatible with.
(that said, this project does sound excessively complex for a take-home)
That thread is hilarious... The dude bootstraps his own search/browser company, an incredibly difficult space, becomes profitable, and sends his customers t-shirts they didn't want. A bunch of HN users who have probably never even applied at a startup are criticizing him for how he runs his profitable business that he funded himself. If he wants to shovel every dollar of profit into a furnace, who cares? It's their money.
This (and other terrible interviewing processes) seem like the epitome of a problem being tackled from the wrong end: Trying to filter things coming OUT of the hiring funnel instead of filtering the things going IN to the hiring funnel.
Case-in-point: Modern job sites (cough LinkedIn). Every job listing has HUNDREDS of applicants within an hour of the job being posted. It's ridiculous. It should not be _that_ easy to apply for a job.
The outcome is what we are seeing today: A company posts a job, is inundated with 100s/1,000s of applications. In order to filter out the 80% of applicants who aren't deeply interested in the role, the company deliberately assigns busywork/road blocks to slow down the process.
The other 20% of applicants will then spend days/weeks/months in the hiring process on intro videos, take home challenges, etc. Basically anything that can be throw at the applicant that isn't time with a human.
The takeaway for each can be broken down into:
- 80% of applicants: didn't spend anything, didn't get anything, don't care
- 19% of applicants: spent time doing some/all of the busywork, _aren't_ hired, end up very frustrated at the amount of time/energy/resources that was spent only to be discarded
- The 1%: spent time doing some/all of the busywork, _are_ hired, feel great!
I'm not sure what the exact solution is, but I know that:
a) it's a race to the bottom (with the bottom being full automation on BOTH sides of the hiring process),
b) I'd much rather spend a fair bit of time putting together applications for 5 jobs and be seriously considered than spend very little time on 50 jobs only to be immediately rejected or handed an assignment before I even talk to a real human being
I feel Kagi's entire point of the take home assignment is to see how people handled assignments if left to their own devices with little instructions to go off.
When good companies are trying to hire engineers, they don't hire based on skill alone. They also try to hire based on how a person performs given certain constraints like time and ambiguity.
Sharing a proposal and asking for more time was probably the polar opposite what they were looking for
I think a lot of product managers prefer to see simple, fast solutions to a take home assignment. Understandable and turned in on time.
I think this is a classic case of over delivering.
The requirements to spin up and obtain live services (postmark, torso), is a bit much, especially for a take home assignment.
Personally, If your app can’t be spun up and tested with a simple "docker compose up —build", then you are doing something wrong.
My rule of thumb for take home assignments: if I spend more than a few hours on it. Then I am probably over delivering and need to rethink approach and remove shit I don’t need. There’s no way in hell I’m spending a full working day, let alone a _week_ of free labor for these assignments.
Note: also not a fan of "take home assignments" either. Of the few companies that ask for these, I consequently ask to be compensated for my time. Only 1 company agreed to compensation, but others declined and I moved on.
Honestly, you lost it with your first email asking for more direction, and every email after that just made it worse.
This was part of the assignment:
> This project tests your ability not only to code, but to deal with ambiguity and open-endedness, which is essential in R&D projects like Kagi Labs.
It was vague on purpose, they wanted to see how your decision making process goes with what you fill in the blanks with, without needing hand holding. You seemed to ignore this critical piece and went further and further against it with each message.
I tell everyone up front (recruiters and companies) I absolutely don't do homework assignments as part of a job interview. If they're unable to judge my skill level from an interview, that speaks volumes about them, not me.
Furthermore, if they are even the kind of company that thinks they're so special they can or should even ask for that, then it proves they're the kind of people I want to avoid like the plague to begin with. So when I'm asked to do a homework assignment it's actually a huge time saver for me, because it tells me right up front to avoid them.
All developers should refuse this. But there are always enough that are so desperate they'll do pretty much anything.
The (interview) game has changed and it will get worse because of more layoffs this year.
To standout, you have to be a bit creative and you must sustain yourself with your own company / startup. (4 basic instructions here) [0]
Companies do not care about you or your take home solution(s) unless you've built something that threatens their existence with a competing product that makes money and steals their users.
Stop playing by their rules with these interview 'games' unless you have lots of time. Spend your time elsewhere. You now have AI, and you should build a startup instead.
Yikes, I love Kagi but if I'd applied for this position and they gave me this assignment, I'd have told them to take a hike. This isn't an afternoon project, it's a full weekend. Maybe two. And are you supposed to be writing tests and stuff for this?
Moreover, this exercise tells you so little about the candidate and their experience. Sure, you know they can code (or did they just use Cursor?) but you have no idea whether they are good and addressing prompts and not at making wise choices. Who cares if the program can send email? What matters is that the client doesn't choke after 10k messages are received or that unicode is handled well: that's the sort of actual challenges you'd be doing at a company like Kagi, not making enormous toy projects.
Edit: Despite that, it seems like a bold choice for the author to build a web app instead of a TUI like the instructions lay out. One could say "terminal inspired" could include web applications but I think that's a stretch.
To be fair, they do explicitly say "build a minimal, terminal-inspired email client" and then "Email client can either be in the terminal (i.e. a TUI) or a web app" below, so even if it's a web app, they expected it to be terminal inspired, especially from the next paragraph in "Inspiration":
> Your implementation should take inspiration from existing terminal email tools like aerc, mutt, or even something like himalaya.
You can totally do terminal-inspired web app - http://www.coboloncogs.org/ is an extreme example, but for this assignment, even fixed-width font and compact layout would likely be enough.
Of course the OP in this post did nothing even close to that.
“but to deal with ambiguity and open-endedness, which is essential in R&D projects like Kagi Labs”…. Also based on the nonsense responses by the hiring manager, it sounds like one of 2 things
Either someone had a vision and is saying ‘Read my mind’
The alternative explanation seems to be, there is no vision, and the interviewee needs to define it.
In either scenario, the amount of communication, feedback, specificity, lack of respect for the power dynamics is appalling.
My honest feedback below from the perspective of a hirer. I'll start by saying I hate takehome stuff, for exactly reasons like this. It wastes everyone's time. They're fine as a 'last step before hire' thing, but not as a filter.
1 - Too much chatter. Part of the assignment is using judgment and working in ambiguity. I probably would have ran with what was given enough to knock out something small and local in an evening or two. Asking questions is usually fine, they even welcomed it, but seems counter to the original ask.
2 - Writing and sharing a proposal seemed like way overkill. You have to remember that these companies are now getting hundreds if not thousands if not tens of thousands of applicants, that is a lot to deal with if everyone does so. I think it's a bit of a disconnect...you feel like you're going above and beyond and being thorough, they feel like it's being a bit long winded and wasting time. That probably explains the nonresponse.
3 - The finished product seemed functional, but seemed a bit overkill on the infra and polish. This is probably a good thing to work with you, but ended up wasting a lot of your time if not being selected, which was the case.
4 - Maybe I missed something, but the requirement asked for terminal inspired. I'm not quite sure precisely what they meant by that, but didn't see any possible interpretation of that in the result.
Anyways, hope you don't take it too negatively or personally - you obviously are a talented individual and moreso seem to really care about your work. Just wanted to play a little devil's advocate with a different perspective.
The attitude of the blog writer in their interactions also feels off. Just reading this blog post makes me think that this person is difficult to work with, requires extremely clear guidelines and instructions, and has a hard time making their own decisions. Maybe this is a good fit for a large, established company, but startups have their own needs.
"Create a terminal inspired email client so we can do an alpha test with some customers" is a reasonable ask for an engineer at an early stage startup. Of course, there would be a bit more specification, but a lot of the details would still be up to the engineer. This applicant wants more certainty than they can get.
This is illustrated by the line: "I would like to know what kind of response I could expect from Kagi if I drive it to completion." This is not a great request to make. There's no way they can answer that question, because there is no certainty available. They're probably getting a few hundred or a few thousand more submissions to evaluate.
Seriously? A candidate puts in a week of work and he can’t be guaranteed a 30 minute discussion?
Nobody is getting a few hundred or few thousand submissions to evaluate. Nobody. If you are getting 1k applicants, at best 50 are asked to do a take-home and even then, not all at once.
If by some miracle 100 people did this to completion at the same time, there should be a notice to the effect that due to high volume, blah blah blah.
Yes on this: It reminds me of when candidates ask me how they did at the end of the interview. It shows an extreme lack of decorum and empathy. What if you did terribly and I wouldn't hire you in a million years? Do you really want me to tell you that?
There's no good answer and asking a question like that shows real narcissism imo.
Conversely, if you can't handle some straightforward feedback to a candidate that took the time to interview you without violating decorum or hurting their feelings, then how can I expect you to be a good manager or supervisor? How are you possibly going to be able to handle minor personnel conflicts or provide guidance during the training period? It comes across as a complete lack of basic managerial skills.
Supervisors/manages don't usually do coding interviews though, especially in bigger orgs.
There is usually a separate interview stage with some sort of manager, and those usually have no coding.
Okay, but basic interpersonal skills are a prerequisite for anybody in a senior or team lead position, or any position that will involve code reviews.
I'm sympathetic to how awkward it can feel to provide honest feedback to a candidate, but look: we're all people here. I think we forget that sometimes when we're assembling hiring processes. As a candidate, you need some kind of feedback mechanism that allows you to improve even if you're not a good fit for a particular organization. And if you're involved in the hiring process in any way, you ought to be equipped to handle that.
This topic has been discussed ad nauseam on HN. In most companies, there is specific company policy that prohibits providing feedback to candidates. There is literally no upside for these companies to provide feedback to candidates that they reject (except Fake/Feel-Good Internet Points, only redeemable on HN forums). Really: There is no way around it, no matter how many tears are spilled about it on HN.
This is simply a defense of bad policy couched in unnecessarily dehumanizing language.
There is widespread resentment of this and many other common hiring practices in the tech sector, and that is further impacting both the quality of candidates as well as employee motivation and satisfaction. The upside for companies is higher quality candidates whose first experience with the company is a hiring process that makes the candidate want to work there.
> In most companies, there is specific company policy that prohibits providing feedback to candidates. There is literally no upside for these companies to provide feedback to candidates that they reject
This is the long and short of it.
In the US at least, discrimination laws are expansive. You can -very- easily end up saying something that violates this and putting your company at risk, no matter how good hearted you were attempting to be.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I deliberately ask how I did because it helps me weed out interviewers who think like this. Not so much "how did I do?" as "now we're close to the end of the interview, do you think we're a good fit for each other?" I give my own feedback and talk honestly about points of friction.
I interview pretty well, but if I go into an interview with a company that wants hungry hustlers and I've spent the whole interview talking about kindness and team spirit, or if you think I don't know enough pl/pgsql to deal with your gnarly legacy backend, or I'm getting the vibe that none of the engineers seem to like working here, then we need to speak honestly about that.
I know I'm interviewing them. That's why we need to talk.
If they wanted to hire me enough to interview me, but at the end of a half-day of interviewing I'm going to walk away without a job, then they need to rewrite their position description so I know not to apply, deal with their morale problem, or directly ask me how much PL/pgSQL I've done. We both stand to benefit from talking about how the interview went.
Not to mention there are legal liabilities with sharing interview performance with candidates. "Oh but the interviewers told me I did extremely well on their interviews. Therefore it must be the case that I was rejected because of ${protected attribute X}."
> What if you did terribly and I wouldn't hire you in a million years? Do you really want me to tell you that?
Yes, that sounds like extremely valuable feedback.
Why do you suppose asking a question like that shows narcissism? To me it shows a willingness to infest feedback to improve.
I will add the caveat that if someone asked me that in an interview I would likely give a non-answer because I’m not totally sure what all I’m even allowed to say.
Not everyone will take feedback the same. It's not worth the reputational risk.
I always tell people how they did. What went right, what went wrong, whether I think they're a good fit and if not, why not.
Because I see what happens to my wife when she interviews, and goddamn its brutal.
A simple request for feedback is not evidence of narcissism or lack of empathy. Could be anxiety. Could be curiosity. Could be zeal. Could be any number of things. It's certainly not an "extreme lack of decorum" though.
It's okay to avoid giving feedback if you don't want to. I can think of a few ways to answer that question in a neutral or positive fashion to defuse the situation and legally protect the company.
Really?? I always appreciated candidates that would ask that at the end - being willing to step aside from the pretense of professionalism to ask a real question and listen to my answer is a signal to me that this is someone who is willing to be real with me, not pretentious or perfunctory.
I do get what you’re saying, but I disagree, there is a good answer; and as is often the case, it’s an honest one.
In other words, the author did a good job but failed because there was an implicit requirement to not try very hard.
> Part of the assignment is using judgment and working in ambiguity.
If trying to clarify requirements is not what they wanted here, they may as well ask candidates to pick a number between 1 and 10 and reject anyone who guesses wrong.
> overkill on the infra and polish
I know its an opinion, but hard disagree on both. Take home tests are intended to show off your ability. Without specific guidance, how can anyone guess how much showing off is expected?
Polish is only bad if it stops you from delivering. Rejecting something that was delivered for being "too polished" feels like you are saying someone did too good of a job.
---
In my opinion tests with vague requirements like this are more likely to be a different way of rejecting people who are not a "culture fit".
The author did a bunch of things that were irrelevant to the product (deploying to Fargate using Pulumi) while not delivering on the basic features that they were asked for ("terminal inspired email client"). If you watch the video it’s a super basic web app that has nothing to do with the TUI apps Kagi named you should use as inspiration. There’s no drafts. No CC or BCC field. No folders or labels (including sent or trash!). No replies. No threads. No shortcuts. There’s not even an indication of whether an email has been read or not. In terms of features it is very very very barebones, and I’m sure if you asked a few users all or most of these would be table stakes. Yes we can agree that "terminal inspired" is very open to interpretation, but spend a few minutes using the apps they gave as reference and you should be able to come up with a long list of features besides "send & receive email", which is the main thing they demonstrated. I get this is a short challenge, so pick a handful of things that are quick to implement and focus on those (like unread markers). You can even say this is a backend position so the UI shouldn’t matter, so then just implement them in the backend and make the simplest UI for it you can! They certainly "delivered" a product but I would not call it polished, and I would not confidently say this was a "culture fit" rejection - I see plenty of other reasons
I think it's pretty obvious to figure out how much polish is "too much". This is a business. Engineers time is limited. Was the time you spent on that more valuable than the alternative? I'm leaving the question of what the alternative was ambiguous on purpose.
> Was the time you spent on that more valuable than the alternative?
In this case the alternative was applying to better companies, so I guess in a way the author really did fail the test.
What they were looking at was not the code, but the attitude. They likely don't want an engineer with a propensity to do too much, unless it's a 100x coder who can do "too much" with a lightning speed. Usually they want he candidate to show the ability to quickly do as much as needed, and not more, and, crucially, to understand how much is needed.
So yes, this is a culture fit test as much (if not more) as a design and coding test. Some people who are great at design and coding would fail it, and it's how this filter is intended to work.
Sorry for the humorous reply (I know this isn't Reddit), but this part gave me a good laugh:
I see you there. Raising the bar from 10x to 100x!?Yes, I needed a ridiculous number, a picture of the coding faculty so strong that writing twice as much code as the task really needs is hardly even noticeable.
IMHO, the author's approach of validating his ideas mirrors modern engineering workflows. Coders don't spend hours independently coding an MR and then getting feedback from prod, tech leads, QA, and UX after the feature is "finished."
Work environments that "code first, review later" have been some of the most toxic in my career. It really sucks when you spend days building a feature only to find its not wanted. Which is why explaining the feature in English and getting approvals is the industry standard for shipping projects.
This candidate followed modern software practices that healthy workplaces follow.
(I'm also a hiring manager at a 1k+ engineer company).
Depends on a place.
I've worked in places with very strong product management, where every single detail must be approved by a PM. I've also worked in places where engineer has a lot of autonomy - "John from FOO dept is spending too much time wrangling the daily data updates. Can you help him, here is his email? Our higher-ups allocated two weeks for that, but we can extend this if needed." - and from then on, you are in full control of the design and implementation, subject to your team's rules (because no one wants a system with bus factor of 1).
For me, I've found that the latter places are much nicer to work in. The interview question seem to focus on latter situation too.
I don't know about everyone else, but as a dev who is currently looking for a job I simply cannot afford to devote a week of unpaid work to each application. It's not sustainable to say the least. Especially when I'm told by some people that getting rejected means I didn't spend enough time on the solution.
I found myself thinking the same thing - perhaps came from a bigger/more established company. Reminded me of the PRD/ERD process. And that's not necessarily bad.
But from my experience, the two types look at each other like the other is insane. If you write up an ERD at a scrappy 6 person startup, everyone is going to think you waste time.
Conversely, if you join a larger team with established processes and begin flinging code at the wall unabated, people are going to think you're reckless and possibly inexperienced.
> Coders don't spend hours independently coding
Exactly. The position they are hiring for is not that of a coder; coding is just one of the skills the position requires, maybe not even the most important.
As a hirer, the kind of takehome assignment I like to give is one that:
* Can be completed in 30 minutes by a skilled programmer
* Has clear evaluation criteria, both objective and subjective
* Has multiple approaches that require making different tradeoffs
And of course, only give it to some candidates where the result will be make-or-break.
As someone who took one of these broad take-home assignments my last time looking for a job, I failed a the assignment for a job I was overqualified for because I was told I wasn't able to divine what parts of the extremely broad assignment I would be graded on.
I doubt I will be in a position where I get a job that isn't a referral for the rest of my career, but it really turned me off of these kinds of assignments, both taking and giving them.
Very curious: how do you deal with AI answers for those?
While writing my questions (and testing in my teammates), I found that "can be completed in 30 minutes by a skilled programmer" very often means "can be completed almost automatically by AI", and that AI will give explanations too, that interviewer could repeat during code review phase.
Every step in the process is a filter. You can ask them not to use AI and trust, you can ask them what tools they used (including AI) and for what part, you can ask the candidate to screen record them programming their solution and forbid using AI, you can ask them about their solution in a followup interview, etc.
It's kind of up to what you're filtering for, and how much you trust the candidate at that part of the process, and how you follow up after hiring.
Holy crap. That was exactly my same reaction. Only thirty mins to complete? Sheesh: Vibe code that!
I think the huge proposal (after several rounds of questions) was what sunk him. The instructions did not request a proposal, and submitting one, especially one that detailed, conveyed “OP cannot take the initiative and proceed with work without seeking approval beforehand.” The project was about asking a few questions, listing a few assumptions, and giving yourself approval to confidently dive in and build something ambiguous. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think the code mattered after that email was sent. The company should have just ended it there without him wasting his time building the assignment.
I also read that proposal and thought: "it's over".
That's the blogger's point. The hiring manager saw the proposal, knew that wasn't what he wanted, and then proceeded to waste an entire week of the candidate's time while he was looking for income.
What do you want the HM to say? "Actually, don't bother anymore, you've already failed"?
that's what the OP wanted.
> Part of the assignment is using judgment and working in ambiguity.
I love that the industry has become so poor at gathering requirements that devs are now effectively filtered for their ability to mind read.
Just to be clear, this wasn't my advice, it was written into the task description -
I'm not sure how I feel about that to be honest. On one hand I get what they're shooting for in general by saying that. On the other, they're going to have some preconceived notion of what they want, and it's a bit of luck if you come close to that.What about:
> And don't hesitate to tell us if you have any questions!
I personally have no problem dealing with "ambiguity and open-endedness" (and, in fact, enjoy it!), but my solution to this problem at every job that has had this issue is: talk to people and understand the problem.
Attempting to "mind-read" is the worst solution to ambiguity, and, in practice, nearly always leads to disaster.
Within the article, he details his attempts to get clarity/feedback and the response of the hiring manager is as vague as it gets
The way to deal with ambiguity and open endedness is by limiting scope and sticking to the unambiguous.
When the client can play with that, the scope can be expanded and additional features can be described.
What they want is someone they can work with. Take home tests are about cultural fit too.
That’s also where it helps to be a mind reader. :)
I agree, it's very fluffy. I think "testing with ambiguity" is the new version of "culture fit."
Regarding 4 - in the full version shared by the author at https://archive.md/A95Ju there is info on what they meant by "terminal-inspired"
It seems they wanted "keyboard driven", "fast/light", "quickly interactive"
The youtube video provided by the OP seems more "web-app", "click driven".
For contrast:
* The OP's submission: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY1sVXMkP_o
* Someone interacting with aerc: https://youtu.be/kpAwwgnZUxg?t=308
* Someone interacting with mutt: https://youtu.be/C35NRp42bEQ
> It seems they wanted
This is the problem. Your guess is different from the author's guess, because nothing is explicitly stated.
For others who did not click the link, the explicit requirements are:
> - Email client can either be in the terminal (i.e. a TUI) or a web app
> - Should have basic email viewing + sending functionality
> - Can use a fake backend (DB, in-memory, etc) or real IMAP/POP/JMAP/etc backend
> - Does not have to handle rich text messages, just plaintext
> Your implementation should take inspiration from existing terminal email tools like aerc, mutt, or even something like himalaya. It should feel fast and intuitive, and you can choose which email flows you'd like to implement.
The word "keyboard" does not appear. Inspiration from X, Y, and Z is entirely subjective, and you should not be punished for not reading the interviewer's mind.
Is it not clear that every single one of the example apps the spec cites are text-based UIs, as in curses-style, monospace text, and (yes) keyboard-driven?
My takeaway from that is that if you don't make an app that is (quote) "in the terminal (i.e. a TUI)" but choose to make a web app, then it should look at act like a TUI.
Reading the brief, the simplest thing that might work is:
1. Spin up an EC2.
2. Install Himalaya.
3. Do some configuration.
Code quality and a sound engineering approach are there.
Personal touches aren’t. Though they look for them, absent domain knowledge they probably don’t want to see them.
Himalaya has documentation and a Github already.
No need to invent the wheel.
Won’t take an unreasonable amount of time.
And looks like a first iteration of a tool.
Also, he missed the deadline.
>Delivery date: Sunday EOD March 30,
>This is two business days later than the two-week mark since you sent me your first email.
With no accompanying personal reason for the delay, it's already a rejection in my books. The objective was to design an appropriate solution within the deadline.
My first though on looking at the code, and then on demo video was: wow, it took that person a solid week to write a web app with two pages.. all while missing the most basic email features, like an ability to opening a message (and not just show full text of mail bodies on one page).
Later on I read the requirements... This person applied to a position named "Email Backend Engineer" but they actually used a third-party product (postmark + turso) for email backend! They also clearly don't think about email too much - the basic stuff, like plaintext email formatting, viewing, and folders (at least inbox + outbox) are simply missing; while there are optional features, like login screen, admin page and backend framework. And backend database does not even containing a email headers map!
That person might be a great engineer, but I don't think they would be a good fit for that specific position. I'd reject them as well.
(A separate question is that hiring manager's second response... We don't do take-home interviews, but I imagine I'd be stumped by a proposal like that, it seems so irregular in a take-home assignment. Still, I can see how the candidate took that response for an approval... perhaps a next candidate would get an extra sentence perhaps something like "actual problem grading would depend on the code quality, number of features implemented, and how close those are to requirements and job description")
Update: read original job description and not just the except from the blog. That person surely omitted some stuff in their blog! the original title was:
"The project is to build a minimal, terminal-inspired email client"
it gave examples:
"Your implementation should take inspiration from existing terminal email tools like aerc, mutt, or even something like himalaya."
wow! that's 100% no hire, serious inability to read the requirements.
> serious inability to read the requirements.
Which requirements were not met?
- Email client can either be in the terminal (i.e. a TUI) or a web app
- Should have basic email viewing + sending functionality
Seems like both were more than met to me.
Inspiration from existing tools is subjective. I would have assumed that spending time on the UI for a backend position was not the best way to show off my skills in a take home test.
The 2nd line of assignment, "The project is to build a minimal, terminal-inspired email client".
I agree that "inspiration" can be subjective, but in this particular case the solution was so much off that it'd be hard to argue otherwise. There is nothing terminal-like in it, and the tool is not usable as an email client either. Instead of doing login screens and user management, author should have made a page to view individual email or added folder (just 3, inbox/sent/trash, would already be a great improvement)
And if you want to ignore the requirements and work off position description... the position is titled "Email Backend Engineer", and the candidate's solution offloads actual email operations (storage, transfer) to third-party services. I suspect that even if candidate provided the same UX, but would have backed it with SMTP, IMAP, TCP/IP (not via http library), DNS MX lookup, resilient storage etc... then they might have passed.
But author failed to do either serious front-end work (required by question) or serious back-end work (required by job posting), so result was entirely predictable.
Take home assessments can be a valuable part of an interview process but they absolutely need a time limit. I think 2-3 hours is going to give you all the information you need, unless what you're selecting for is new grads with no dependents, hobbies, or responsibilities.
If this had been limited to 3 hours then the worst case is that the candidate would have lost 3 hours, but far more likely is that they would have come up with an entirely different proposal and/or solution that was appropriate for that timeline, and that extra information would have made it clearer what the company was looking for.
The other point I'd always encourage applicants to confirm is: are you looking for any answer, or are you looking for a good answer. Some take-home tests are purely about passing a test suite and how you manage it doesn't matter, some would prefer that you meet 80% of the requirements but write better code. I've seen applicants do the wrong thing on both sides of this.
To me, as someone who hires and gives candidates take home assignments, Kagi’s assignment is huge and disrespectful of the candidate’s time. Surely they’re (probably unintentionally) filtering for candidates that have a lot of time to waste on projects like this — while people who are busy (the kind of people you want) will pass.
Surely there must be other ways to have an idea on a candidate’s skills.
In our case, hiring people with data engineering skills, we just ask of them a simple ETL challenge (pull data from zip file, transform it, insert into any database). We leave ambiguities in there and there are some Easter eggs in the dataset (eg null values where you would not expect it, incorrectly formatted CSV) that we use to evaluate how well a candidate can perform.
We timebox it at 4 hours, but don’t give guidance in case they run out of time, that’s a good suggestion.
During a follow up call, we review the code together and we’ll ask them questions on how to improve the code (“what if the dataset doesn’t fit in memory”, etc), which is what the actual technical assessment is. At that point they should already feel somewhat comfortable with the problem domain, and you can assess their real skills.
I agree about Kagi, but about your process wanted to ask: do you really feel like having them write the code as a take-home task adds any signal to the process?
At my current gig we do a 1-hour pair programming kind of thing, where we video-chat and watch the candidate work on a small, straightforward task. And as the interviewer I watch how they use the tools, where they go for docs, do they read the requirements, how do they test, etc. By the end I always feel like I have a strong picture of their ability, and the whole thing is capped at 90 minutes for both sides (adding time for their questions).
If the candidate's code was written offline beforehand, I'd have no idea whether it was theirs, whether it came from a friend or chatGPT, whether it took ten minutes or ten hours, etc. Sure I could try to suss out those things during discussion, but isn't it better to observe directly?
The solution to this problem ultimately needs to be a regulatory one.
People should be paid for the time they spend in interviews.
You make that the law and this ambiguous hoop jumping bullshit goes away real fast. Companies will optimize for cost instead of dumping cost onto the prospective employees.
This is good for the economy because it forces companies to innovate and optimize the interview process and it saves hundreds hours of totally economically unproductive time on the part of candidates.
Yes. It would also force them to screen resumes and do better profile research or they wouldn’t spend the money.
That's basically my feeling too. No one would ask for a maid to clean their house free for 4 hours, in order to decide if they want to hire her long term. And that's precisely what hiring managers have been getting away with for decades, because no one is pushing back. The managers are essentially abusing their power. It's all about abuse of power and utter arrogance.
But if you're unable to determine if someone has this knowledge via a phone call, instead of 4 hours of their work without you even being present, then that failing is on you, not them. If you can't judge someone's knowledge by asking questions, then you don't know how to come up with the right questions. Again that's on you. The only thing a 4-hr take home test will filter for is desperation. You'll get the most desperate candidates, and you'll do so by wasting days and days of people's time once you add it all up. It's just utterly disrespectful to demand these silly homework problems. I always take it that way. I take it personally, tbh. I find it absolutely insulting to even be asked and I simply refuse.
How do you know that interviewees aren't spending more time on it?
Because you can't guarantee all candidates are spending the same amount of time, it becomes a game theory problem where the candidates will typically lose in some form. In many cases, the right answer is to spend extra time making a really polished (but not too polished!) solution and pretend like you stayed in the time limit. And every candidate is either a) doing that, or at least b) worried that their competition is doing that.
Even if we ignore that dynamic, 3 hours is a long ass time for a candidate to spend when they're not even sure they'll get to talk to another human about it.
In a 1-hour interview, you can run a candidate through a programming exercise and be guaranteed they're not wasting extra time on it. And if they happen to prefer doing take home assessments, you can always let them send you an updated answer later. (But often by the time a candidate asks me if they can do that, I've already developed a favorable view of their skills and can tell them, "go for it if you want, but you've already 'passed' my test.")
By keeping the candidate-interviewer time investment the same, you guarantee that you're respecting the candidate's time as you would your own (because you're sitting there with them.) I can help them skip over the parts I'm not interested in (e.g., by feeding them info they'd be able to find via search or telling them not to worry about certain details.)
If a hiring manager doesn't respect their candidates' time, how likely are they to respect their employees' time?
Yep, this is what I am taking from this thread: Next time I am given a take-home, I am going to ask them to promise, that I will get to talk to a human about it. They can of course straigh-ass lie about it, and I am sure I will run into such abysmal behavior at some point.
> How do you know that interviewees aren't spending more time on it?
In some cases we roughly timed it, scheduling an email for a time the candidate wanted and asked them to return it 3 hours later. In some cases we just treated it as an honour system. We made it clear that the task was intended to take about that much time and that spending more time was not allowed/encouraged.
In reality, we found that good candidates took ~1-2h, and in some cases where candidates spent a lot longer and owned up to it, we found no improvements. In one case a candidate submitted at 3h and then again at 8, and we marked the 8h version 1 mark lower.
I agree with the author that live code reviews are much better than live coding, but if companies insist on a live coding exercise: let me bring my laptop and mouse leave the room for 45 minutes and come back when we can talk about what I built.
I understand that their responses were very minimal and not helpful, but it clearly says in the requirements to make a "terminal-inspired" email client. However, in the video you shared [1] I see a somewhat generic email web app, with nothing particularly "terminal-inspired". Considering the fact that they wanted either a real TUI or a webapp, I'm pretty sure that the web app should've also been "terminal-inspired". Am I missing something? I'm not trying to necessarily criticize you, perhaps I just misunderstood the requirements.
Edit: I've actually checked the full requirements page, and they explicitly say this in "Inspiration":
> Your implementation should take inspiration from existing terminal email tools like aerc, mutt, or even something like himalaya.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY1sVXMkP_o
Yeah, a clearer explanation in the rejection email would have been nice, or perhaps even a warning in response to the proposal (though it's not 100% clear from the proposal alone that OP would be going down a path that ignores that part of the assignment.) But the prompt explicitly lists other terminal clients as the inspiration.
Also, the prompt for a terminal client really changes what they're testing! Email web UIs have been a known quantity for years. But the UX of a terminal client is still something that's not "solved." I suspect the rubric for the question has large sections about how they decide to make a terminal client that OP's submission doesn't address at all
Also they seem to put emphasis on Go programming, which takes < 20 lines to get a cli running so not sure why they chose a browser GUI, which is arguably much more work.
I did a recent round of interviews and this experience closely mirrors mine (at multiple places). Delivered an exceptional solution to the problem only to be rejected without a discussion about the delivered project. I have been on the hiring end of take-homes multiple times and firmly believe that if you ask someone to do a take-home assignment you must follow up with a chat about the code. Apparently that's not the case at most places.
If you're asked to do a take home, I highly recommend confirming that there will be a follow up regardless of the assessment, and if they do not agree to this, do not do the "home work". The honest truth is that most of the teams hiring are of pretty low quality and therefore implementing a good solution is a negative because the team hiring is not at your level (which is a frustrating reason for being rejected).
I'm an early adopter of Kagi and am now planning on cancelling my account over of this. Completely unacceptable. If you don't have time to chat with a candidate about their work, don't ask them to do the work in the first place.
> I have been on the hiring end of take-homes multiple times and firmly believe that if you ask someone to do a take-home assignment you must follow up with a chat about the code.
That’s actually a very valid point. Take-home assignments not only require a significant amount of effort from the person administering them but also from the interviewer (or rather, the hiring team). After investing the time and effort in reviewing a project, it’s reasonable to expect feedback/a response back if requested.
However, we must also acknowledge certain realities. If there are 20 solid candidates for a single open position, many capable individuals will be rejected. This doesn’t imply that they were inadequate or even “failed.” It’s simply a reality of life.
Now to be asked to justify why a hiring manager picked A and not B, legally speaking, cannot be that I had to pick one out of the amazing candidates, so I picked one. The legally correct response (unfortunately) is to get nit picky and find faults where none really exists. At least, that has been my observation in how corporate America likes to operate. And last time I checked, Kagi is based out of Palo Alto.
> if there are 20 excellent responses for a single open position, many capable individuals will be rejected.
I would never ask 20 people to do a take-home assignment. There are so many better ways to test team fit before asking someone to commit serious, unpaid, time to a project. Historically speaking a 30 minute chat with someone provides a surprisingly good amount of information to anyone experienced in hiring.
But if you want to commit 20 people to take-home assignments, then block off 20 hours next week for 1-on-1s to chat with them about those assignments. If that sounds like too much, then don't find a better way to filter down the number of people doing homework until it feels manageable.
to justify why a hiring manager picked A and not B, legally speaking, cannot be that I had to pick one out of the amazing candidates, so I picked one.
Why not? Does this phrasing implies any form of illegal discrimination?
I agree. The company should have either published clear guidelines on how the project would be assessed or provided some feedback on what could have been done better. It's okay to fail an assignment, but it's not acceptable to waste someone's time without offering anything in return. There are many companies, including pop startups, that handle this well.
did they really deliver "exceptional solution" though?
Their solution seems to be nothing like "a minimal, terminal-inspired email client", and OP completely ignored the references to tools they were told to "take inspiration from"
When there is such bad misunderstanding of the requirements, I'd not waste time on the discussion either.
There was able opportunity for the hiring manager to point that out if that were the case. They specify questions where encouraged and then completely ignored the questions. If the HM doesn't have time to respond, then maybe take-home as first filter is not a good decision.
Were there? The question clearly said, "build a minimal, terminal-inspired email client" and "take inspiration from existing terminal email tools like aerc, mutt". Candidate completely ignored that part and built a tool which is nothing like terminal email at all.
Would any of their emails give a hiring manager idea that the candidate failed to understand the assignment in such a gross way?
Email 1, "What kind of extra feature do you value highly"
Interviewer thinks: "UX improvement could be VI-like megacommands, "pretty UI" must mean creative use of colors and font attributes, privacy-related must be encryption at rest... It's all good, we are happy to look at all of those!"
Email 2, "A webapp with golang accessible online, deployed through AWS using ECS Fargate, with SSL (https), integrated with an email sender provider, with authentication through a login screen, with the ability to send emails through a form, and displaying incoming emails in the user interface."
Interviewer thinks: "OK, that's a lot of implementation details.. Not sure why candidate feels the need to confirm that, but nothing in the list above will be graded as a negative. The important things we care about are that it's inspired by terminal apps like mutt, and that "it should feel fast and intuitive" and one can totally do that using technologies above"
Without seeing the screenshots/mockups, how would one even guess that the candidate was so off?
I took a look at the code, to see how I would react as a reviewer.
In the first file I opened, I got as far as here: https://github.com/Sleepful/mymail/blob/main/app/router/page...
First line is very weird, unrelated to the task. Maybe copy-paste from a sample in a blog post? Anyway not paying attention to leave it in.Wording in the second line is not consistent with third.
I’d stop my review there. Lack of attention to detail. Author does not demonstrate an ability to think clearly.
The problem in the story is not that the candidate was rejected but that the process is largely disrespectful by asking for a lot of unpaid time to implement some project without clear guidelines or giving valuable feedback.
The author wasted a significant amount of his own time, and the hiring manager’s time with all the questions, the proposal, etc.
Even after asking for all this clarity, he failed to do what was originally asked. If asking for all those details, you have to at least do the basics of what was asked.
He failed on multiple fronts here, and even wrote an entire blog post without realizing it. It seems like Kagi did the right thing by not hiring him, if we’re being brutally honest. If he would re-read the original ask with a fresh set of eyes, then look at his final product and all the communication, the feedback should go without saying. When someone misses the mark by that much, it’s takes a lot of effort to try and say it nicely to soften the blow, as a company would want to do. Multiply this by however many people applied, and there just aren’t enough hours in the day.
Now that he’s written this blog post, I wonder if he’ll have more trouble even getting past the first gate of hiring processes, as other companies won’t want to sign on to have a blog post trying to drag them through the mud over a rejection. That shows more questionable judgement.
This is a classic case of misreading the subtext. They want you to be independent and able to create your own work and goals. The ambiguity of the take home task is not there for you to interrogate over multiple emails, rather its an open palette for you to show how you take a relatively broad task and produce your own interrogation of the problem space.
As someone who works at a university this is very reminiscent of students who don't understand the assignment then complain when they get an unexpected mark.
I completely agree. The assigment seems to be looking for someone who will make as minimaly clever functional solution as possible. Someone who will dare to “be lazy” in interview where they want to impress.
This is not that common trait. But if your company has more prototype driven approach with quick “experiment” releases some people are just very bad fit and thats bad for everyone.
There is probably a candidate that thought for 10 minutes - what best can be done in 60min. They probably leveraged some http auth and forms, run that through tiny go backend, sent it with brief email. And they most likely looked a lot better in the process.
That would maybe be a valid point if the take home set any context beyond "it's an R&D project" and "minimal".
What do you want to achieve here, is this a throwaway prototype or would a user ever see this? Am I going to get picked on for imperfect UX or do you just want to see something. It becomes an exercise in guessing the reviewers sensibilities.
Man, I hate take-homes.
When I see instructions that say “This project tests your ability not only to code, but to deal with ambiguity and open-endedness”, it actually means either a) this exercise has been so poorly conceived that we didn’t bother with a rubric or b) the work environment is so chaotic, we never clearly define specs or requirements for anything.
That, and the instruction to simultaneously “show off your skills” and deliver a pragmatic functional solution are completely at odds. Good simple solutions aren’t flashy.
To me, take-homes that have UI or API integrations are a bit of a red flag, because UI code (for most roles) is relatively boring, and API integrations are a lot of faff with not much signal. Cool you can make an HTTP request, cool you've got a basic CRUD editing setup. It's a lot of code that takes a lot of time and tells me almost nothing about how you code, hell, AI tools will happily generate these things in no time and at a pretty good quality.
What I want to see is an engineer implement an awkward bit of business logic. Does it become a million nested if statements and a "here be dragons" comment at the top, or do they identify the right patterns and build something that I can reason about when reading the code? This is far more valuable in the job, more signal in the interview, and much harder for AI to get right. It also takes less time.
I’ve seen a few that let you fork a repo with all that boilerplate set up and you just have a few stubbed methods to fill out, and that seems reasonable. But going from 0->1 on an app is so much grunt work and I doubt the reviewers would even look into all of it
I would say that's reasonable, although it again sorta depends on the stubbed methods and what you're trying to figure out from them, and I'd question the necessity of the boilerplate - can't you just implement the methods?
I believe they don't. I think its a filter that they want people they can push into too much work to apply.
Can I ask you and everyone else - why do AI is so good at UI/CRUD apps and terrible at business logic?
I've been caught with this few times now. Spend ages trying to coerce AI to solve logic problem and end up just manually solving it myself. Whereas UIs are so good and usually near perfect from first prompt. I suspect it's the weak prompt. I need to learn and solve this before my brain completely atrophies (there must be Anthropic joke here somewhere hehe).
I doubt it's prompting. I think the issue is more likely that UI code is often similar, has a lot of examples online, and often doesn't require understanding data flow. This is why LLMs are great at "boring" React components, because they don't actually understand the flow of the data, but they don't need to.
Business logic on the other hand is much more likely to be novel in some way, there are likely fewer similar examples for rules to be learnt from, etc.
Obviously this is all gradations, LLMs can manage some business logic and mess up some UIs (they can't "see" the UI which doesn't help!), but this is my experience of them and fits with my understanding of the technology.
> we never clearly define specs or requirements for anything.
I mean, what if part of the role that’s being hired for is to help people clearly define the specs and requirements? I consider that a big part of what it means to be a senior software engineer.
Maybe this exact format isn’t the best way to test for it, but I don’t think “we want to see if someone can deal with ambiguity” means all the work is ambiguous. It might just mean all work needs to go through a process to take it from “ambiguous requirements” to “clearly defined specs”
> what if part of the role that’s being hired for is to help people clearly define the specs and requirements?
Then they should have responded to his questions in email?
I personally love working on projects that are vaguely defined because it means getting to interact with people and understanding the heart of the problem. My favorite roles have involved reaching out to non-technical people and figuring out how to solve their problem. Often it's not the solution they even initially asked for.
But if your role is to guess about vague specs with no communication, then you're going to fail no matter how senior you are.
> I mean, what if part of the role that’s being hired for is to help people clearly define the specs and requirements?
Then I'd expect the interview process to focus on that process, not on the final deliverable. As it stands, the candidate tried to interact with the interviewer by trying to ask for clarification on the requirements, then making a detailed proposal, and got no actionable feedback from either.
Could one do a "terminal inspired, mutt-like email client" that completely satisfies OP's proposal (web-based, TEMPL, pocketbase, pulumi, etc...)? Sure, it would be possible. None of those are _required_ for the submission but you can totally use them if you wanted to. So the interviewer probably thought, "hey this person is going all out", and was absolutely honest in saying "Looking forward to receiving your submission"
I cannot really blame the interviewer for not reminding the candidate that they should actually follow the requirements, in addition to all the optional stuff they mentioned in their spec.
It's a start-up with a lot of different projects. It is expected that the work environment would be chaotic. People who look for a no-surprises type of work week should probably not apply to such a kind of workplace.
> Good simple solutions aren’t flashy.
Maybe showing off your skills is making a good and simple solution?
Sure, the work is chaotic. But why would the interview process need to be chaotic? You want to get the best signals of ability that you can, and one thing you can do to help that is to make sure that you’ve given an assignment that will be evaluated consistently on your end and understood uniformly by the participants
> Sure, the work is chaotic. But why would the interview process need to be chaotic?
Because the interview is meant to measure how well someone would perform on the work?
> You want to get the best signals of ability that you can, and one thing you can do to help that is to make sure that you’ve given an assignment that will be evaluated consistently on your end and understood uniformly by the participants
Well sure, all else being equal, but if the cost of consistency is an assignment that doesn't reflect the actual work environment then that may outweigh the benefit.
But why conflate “technical skill assessment” and “ambiguity handling” into one big stressful test?
Doing two small tests toy can measure each skill independently
A clear coding test to get technical skill and then some in person requirements gathering exercise or something to measure ambiguity handling.
You’ll get better insight into their abilities with less effort for the interviewee AND the interviewer (if the startup is really that chaotic, do you really think they are doing a careful code review on a zillion different bespoke takehomes?)
> But why conflate “technical skill assessment” and “ambiguity handling” into one big stressful test?
Because the combination is what matters for the hiring decision, and a single test is a lot easier for everyone than two tests.
> You’ll get better insight into their abilities with less effort for the interviewee AND the interviewer
Disagree. It would always end up being approximately twice as much effort for both.
I just can’t get past the fact that he didn’t even deliver on the core deliverable of “ The project is to build a minimal, terminal-inspired email client”. Nothing about the demo I watched on YouTube looked “terminal-inspired”
As an engineering interviewer I feel the urge to comment. I like neither leet code, nor home assignments. They are both time consuming and provide you with a little information.
But having said this I would have likely rejected the author too. Kagi Search is a startup, these folks are typically looking for fast moving, pragmatic optimists who can strike the breadth - depth balance.
We used to have a colleague. They would collect the inputs, close themselves for a few days, come up with a solution only to learn that reqs changed in the meantime. It was not pleasant experience for anyone.
Building a concrete, working, minimum-viable solution from ambiguous requirements: that's the point of the exercise. That's what hiring managers want in candidates because those candidates end up being good at building a concrete, working solutions from ambiguous requirements. Which is every software project ever. Although the AI Age has unquestionably changed the efficacy of this kind of candidate screening, that is orthogonal to this discussion. For many years it has been one of the most-effective ways to screen for the ability to build concrete, working solutions from ambiguous requirements. Which is every software project ever. So it's no surprise it persists.
Yes, software is full of ambiguities but there are methods we use to handle them. OP emailed an outline wanting feedback, as any team player would do to iron out ambiguities, and received a meaningless reply. I think it's safe to say companies don't want their engineers going into a corner never to be seen again for 2 weeks, which is what this interview process recreates.
OP's proposal was only describing irrelevant stuff (the backend technologies) and was completely silent on on stuff that mattered (demonstrating how actual RFC822 email works, mutt-inspired UI). It was therefore accepted without comments, as there were no "substance" to comment on.
That is often a problem with proposals/design docs in general. In the real job, if proposal is actually required, it would be sent it back with "please add details on UX and how you are going to store email headers". In this case, the proposal was explicitly _not_ required though, so interviewers did not want to ask for more details on the optional document. They checked what was written there, found no problems, and approved it.
OP didn't take into account the (great) asymmetry between themselves and the hiring manager, then built an entire lament on that. Dealing with this job req is likely just one of many day-to-day responsibilities the HM has and frankly I'm impressed they responded with three whole sentences. One method we can use to handle such ambiguity is to "make your best judgement" based on your skills, knowledge and experience (things that are tested for in the hiring process, incidentally), because often you may not get the answer you want or expect if any at all.
You don't think the author built a concrete, working solution?
They explicitly asked for a minimal, terminal-inspired email client for their Email Backend Engineer role. OP built a ton of infrastructure, created a generic web app that has no semblance of terminal inspiration as far as I can tell, and outsourced the backend to third party APIs.
Concrete and working? Technically, yes. This would have been an excellent submission for a different assignment and role. But it doesn't seem to suit the specifications for this one.
Not what was expected of them. I included "minimum-viable" in my original reply for a specific reason: to counter OP's lament that they lost out to a simpler solution.
If you are asked to implement X and instead you take extra time and come back with X+Y+Z, what have you done? Wasted time e.g. money. Companies really hate wasting money.
So if in your candidate project you demonstrate a propensity for bike-shedding any task, that's gonna be a big red flag.
It was expected that the candidate filled the blanks. He specifically mentioned he would fill those blanks with Y+Z, before he spent time on them.
In the real world, if the time he spent was deemed wasted time, that's management's fault.
I have done this dance a few times. My learning about interview assignments is review the written grading rubric before reading anything else. If the grading criteria lacks specificity then don’t do the assignment. If there is no provided grading rubric in advance then don’t do the assessment.
Man this sounds rough. I had a somewhat similar experience a while back but instead of going back and forth trying to nail down requirements, I went down this spiral of wondering if the lack of clarity wwas part of some kind of meta-test.
"Do they want to see if I can build something with as little guidance as possible?"
"Do they want me to push for more requirements like I would on a real project?"
"If I build something cool but totally off from what they expected will that make me look better or worse?"
"Or are they just trying to weed out the people that can't code at all?"
In the end I didn't get a follow-up interview and they refused to give me any feedback on how I could have done better on the take-home assessment.
Back to the OP: One such example would be to do a live code review. This could be done asynchronously or synchronously. It could allow actually talking through topics and issues that relate to the challenges in a real software project. This would allow to surface much more of the knowledge in an experienced software engineer.
I like this idea a lot.
I worked with a lot of engineers in my 40+ year engineering career. One thing that most engineers don't like is ambiguity. I didn't like it either, until mid career when I was thrown into an environment where the customers didn't really know what they wanted, and it was impossible to explore all of the solution space within time and budget constraints. I ended up thriving in this environment, but I watched as many qualified and experienced engineers floundered and over-stressed themselves. The attrition rate in this environment was about 80%. To survive, I had to use intuition, speculation, and innovation -- things I had not used much in my previous engineering roles. I sadly watched while a lot of really good engineers chose to move on, or were assigned to less relevant roles.
In this case, I perceive that the author (Jose) was looking for firm requirements, and did what he could to elicit them, but the Kagi folks were just looking for innovation and a demonstration of competency. They didn't care as much about the details of the submittal as they did about seeing what the candidate would do without specific requirements.
I feel like Kagi was just asking "Impress us" and OP misunderstood the assignment by actually building a solid project and handling edge cases that no one cared about.
Anyways thanks for writing this up OP, it was an interesting read and I am a Kagi customer so I liked learning about them.
they actually did not... the original requirement said "a minimal, terminal-inspired email client" and "take inspiration from existing terminal email tools like aerc, mutt". This is nowhere near them, not even close.
Not sure why OP makes no mention of this in their blog post - perhaps they thought those parts were unimportant? In which case I am not surprised at the results.
If Kagi was asking to impress them, then the OP understood perfectly because that is not what they said.
I agree on all points.
The project was well made, but my read on it was that they wanted to be shown something interesting. Even if it wasn't as well made of polished, I got the impression they would have preferred something "fun" or imaginative.
I understand the frustration here. I assume Kagi has a lot of candidates and is trying to identify the best ones for handling ambiguity. While I can appreciate the interviewee’s desire for more information or a rubric, it might potentially hurt the effectiveness of the take-home assignment.
During my college days, I had an on-campus interview with Microsoft that served as an assessment for whether I would be eligible for more in-person interviews in Seattle. The interview question was open-ended: “I would like you to design an alarm clock.” It seemed like an unusual open-ended question that prompted me to consider several critical factors, such as the intended audience, physicality, visibility, and audibility. By considering these factors and not immediately presenting a solution, the interview team informed me that I had passed the test. If they had provided me with more specific instructions or guidelines before the interview, they might have missed a signal that was important to them.
Unfortunately, I did not advance to the subsequent rounds at Microsoft. I interviewed during the fall semester. While I made it thru the full process, I was informed that I lacked confidence, but wasn’t a no. I was encouraged to reapply in the spring. The initial experience had left me drained and disheartened, so I decided not to pursue a second attempt. I now deeply regret this decision and wish I had given it another chance. If anyone is in a similar situation during their college years, I strongly advise them to avoid making my mistake. Working at a FAANG company could have changed my entire life and career trajectory.
> The initial experience had left me drained and disheartened, so I decided not to pursue a second attempt. I now deeply regret this decision and wish I had given it another chance. If anyone is in a similar situation during their college years, I strongly advise them to avoid making my mistake. Working at a FAANG company could have changed my entire life and career trajectory.
If this applies to you, this is probably the best advice anyone can give to you. I was granted an in-person interview with Microsoft as a freshman back in the early 2000s on account of my stellar GPA. They were the company to work at back then. Unfortunately, I didn't solve the brain teaser. Disheartened, I refused to try again even when they invited me to try again the next few years, and I went with an old dinosaur company instead.
I realized my mistake shortly after starting to work at the dinosaur, and clawed my way tooth and nail into a job at Microsoft. It took me 2 years, but it was the single best thing I have done for my career, and changed the course of my life for the better.
The uncertainty of the assignment and the lack of responsiveness during this week-long unpaid endeavor are inexcusable. Your anecdote strikes me as a totally different process as Kagi's in every possible way.
The problem is not the lack of a "rubric", it is the sheer amount of effort expected from the candidate, especially related to the unprofessionalism of the response. This process is set up to waste a maximum amount of time from candidates without any sort of feedback, and no proof that a reward even existed.
How many dozens of people completed this assignment and got rejected? How many of those assignments were even reviewed by the manager? Did anyone actually get hired? "Giving details would make this less effective for the manager" doesn't begin to excuse this behavior.
Honestly this hiring manager casts a negative light on the entire organization. Do they treat everyone this poorly? Business partners, employees?
> I understand the frustration here. I assume Kagi has a lot of candidates and is trying to identify the best ones for handling ambiguity. While I can appreciate the interviewee’s desire for more information or a rubric, it might potentially hurt the effectiveness of the take-home assignment.
I mean, potentially they failed the real test by asking all the questions - Kagi specifically say they're looking for people who can deal with an open-ended project, and instead of just deciding to do something cool, they seem to spend a lot of time demonstrating that they can't deal with open-endedness by asking a lot of questions and coming up with a detailed spec and asking for approval before starting.
That's not to say what Kagi is doing is good, but it's probably for the best for the candidate that they didn't get the job because it sounds like they wouldn't flourish in that kind of environment (which is better to know before starting a job, instead of starting a job you're going to hate and then burning out or failing probation)
* Ask clarifying questions: Get failed for not being able to handle ambiguity
* Don't ask clarifying questions: Get failed for making assumptions and not identifying business requirements before implementation
nope, they asked the clarifying question, and got the response that there are no business requirements: "That is part of the assessment itself, see what kind of extra features you can come up if any."
They were failed because they could not deal with the answer, they were not failed for act of asking the question itself.
Actually happens sometimes in my work... Q: "Are there any requirements on the database used?" A: "Nope, just make sure the final system will be able to handle the required load"
This article perfectly highlights the perils of unbounded take home tests.
A timeboxed test for a small group (say, no more than 10) of final candidates can be an excellent differentiator.
The problem here is Kagi have omitted the timebox, so less confident and/or experienced candidates go to the ends of the earth to deliver something that was never going to meet the mark.
Had Kagi said “spend no more than 4 hours on this” - and arguably reduced some of the requirements accordingly - then your man here wouldn’t have wasted a week (!) of his time and Kagi’s.
It’s a real shame that so much time was wasted by the candidate, but the requirements are very clear that “This project tests your ability … to deal with ambiguity and open-endedness”. He’d already dug a hole for himself before he’d started, unfortunately.
I just read half of the article and this is painful to read. They’re asking for something relative simple as a take home, that just requires a little bit of imagination to fill the gaps. Why does the candidate have to be so fussy about details? Do the best you can, fast, and don’t announce you’re gonna be 2 days late for a take home!
To work in a startup you have to embrace the "just do it" mindset, you have a brain to fill the gaps, and you can always iterate later. I’d be more interested in getting the result of the take home quickly, obviously in a working state, but with a documentation explaining trade offs because of lack of time, ideas for future improvements, design choices, stuff not included (ie. a pretty UI) etc.
My take: they’re literally asking for a CRUD (if you decouple well, you can easily replace the DB with SMTP/IMAP later) with basic email features: send (to, cc, bcc), fetch, reply, reply all, transfer. That’s it, you can do it in 2 hours. Add folders, signatures, "send later", authentication, or whatever if you want to show off.
--
Additionally as an experimented Go developer (8 years working with Go as my main language), the code is not great and tbh I would have rejected it if I received this technical test where I work.
In 5 minutes of reading the code:
- lots of commented out test stuff, don't leave that in a take home or I'm gonna assume you'll do the same in your commits
- lots of println but no logging
- relative imports (eg "mymail/app/router"), don't do this
- weird choice of relatively big dependencies (turso? pocketbase? negroni?)
- no architecture or decoupling, everything is in the router
- bad use of the context (getEmails)
- no tests (no need to test everything for a take home but at least some things can be tested)
People say languages are interchangeable and you're never a "xxx" dev, but that's not true. They asked for "Proficiency in Go" and the candidate is not proficient in Go, that would be the number 1 reason for rejection.
I don't mind take home assignments per se, but it seems like there should be a reasonable "this should take this long" time boxing of the thing so people don't waste a ton of time. I've done take-home things a couple of times and they always had "this should take 12 hours" or whatever time amount.
The "simpler" solution part stood out to me though. Given that Kagi was putting little effort into the thing, I wonder if his verbosity/try-hardness might have been a turnoff? Afterall, part of the thing is determining if you want to work with a person, my impression reading his blog post was.. mildly turned off? There was just a bit of desperation to it (which might be from real factors!) but still. That sounds mean and I don't like saying it, that's just kind of the vibe that hit me.
Yeah the company has to give a timebox. It's true that candidates could abuse that, but open ended "impress us" is asking for trouble for both parties. And honestly you should be able to tell of someone spends 20h or something you said to take 4h on.
My take on the proposal: the hiring contact is not the person who wrote or will review the prompt. The candidate sent this long message and I doubt the hirer even read it. That's some nativety on the candidate's part, but the company absolutely should indicate "you're overthinking this"
Take home assignments I feel have the second worst signal for any hiring workflow (behind automated leetcode), you give someone free reign to spend too much time working on something useless without seeing how they actually think or approach problems, you only get a solution at the end, and the solution, especially in open ended problems like these has very loose objective measures. If you want a long term hiring process, I'd just stick to a contract project, though personally just do monitored interviews; I know it takes up more of the hiring managers time, but the amount of signal you get from actually talking and interfacing with a dev is pretty useful
It's a tough lesson, but a good one to learn early: never waste time with interview take home assignments. This is especially true for broad and ambiguous assignments that you will need to sink lots of time into.
What if there are 300 other applicants? What's to disincentivize giving all of them the assignment even when there's only one open position? There is no guarantee that anybody will even clone your repository.
In a live coding interview, the company is committing valuable engineering resources to evaluate you. You have some assurances that they actually want to hire someone and not just get free labor or waste your time.
You probably triggered LLM blindness with your proposal. Never use formal style speech in markdown with bullet points.
It sounds like Kagi asked for something simple but creative, and the author overengineered it.
The author didn't really ask for a code review, though a lot of people imagining themselves in the position of technical hiring manager are already taking care of that.
Anyway: I don't think homework assignments are a valuable mechanism for filtering out candidates. Setting aside shoulds and shouldnots and the ethics of it and everything else, it simply provides a really poor signal for the value of a potential candidate.
Especially today, when something like this particular assignment could just be pasted into any of the popular LLMs and returned as completed within a couple hours.
If an organization wants to hire developers that can take vague project descriptions and convert them into code that may or may not do whatever was in the heads of the people that wrote the project description, then (a) that's a bad practice, but (b) it would be better for everyone involved if you handled this over a video call. If your staff are too busy to do a small pile of video calls with potential candidates over a couple of weeks, then they are too busy to properly onboard a new candidate and you should probably just pack it in. (i.e., they are not too busy to do this.)
If the goal is to hire somebody that knows IMAP, SMTP, POP, etc. inside-and-out and can crank out RFC-compliant code without using any of the third-party libraries that already exist for this sort of thing, then the assignment description should have asked for that.
Homework assignments are an unfortunately common practice, but worst of all, most of them are carelessly designed.
> Especially today, when something like this particular assignment could just be pasted into any of the popular LLMs and returned as completed within a couple hours.
That would have been significantly more in line with what the interviewer was looking for and would have produced better results. It’s a take home test. Use the tools at your disposal.
That would mean Kagi's selection criteria at this stage is "candidate knows what an LLM is".
While I would never do a take-home assignment for a job, I think your expectations are out of line with the current buyers market that has hundreds or thousands of applications for every position.
Your solution is the same old thing thousands of others could produce. They want more than a programmer that knows some languages, tools and libraries.
I think they might give you 10 more minutes of their consideration if you simply produced a command-line program in Go that used sockets to talk protocols to servers.
Although I agree with you regarding leetcode and the lack of feedback on rejections, I honestly don't understand the dislike for take-home assignments. If you truly enjoy coding, you could see them as an excuse to work on a new hobby project.
I went through something very similar — spent several days on a take-home assignment, took it seriously, carefully followed all the instructions and delivered everything.
Then I waited for two weeks, and all I got was a clearly templated response.
The worst part isn’t even the rejection — it’s the vague replies, or no reply at all.It just makes you feel like your time doesn’t matter.
Thank you for writing this. We really do need more people to speak up about these things.
From this post, it seems like the hiring manager is either not the real hiring manager (maybe just an HR agent with this lofty title) or was himself hired without any screening or on the job evaluation for reading and responding to emails (which is a big part, IMO, of any manager) or has multiple roles to play and has no time to devote to hiring.
I feel sorry for the author to have spent more time on actually doing the assignment after that reply.
Very insightful idea here. If you work in software, requirements engineering is a key task. Figuring out “would this deliver for you?” is a key question you hash out with clients.
But the absurdity of take home work like this is the company feels obliged to keep their requirements secret. Thus, by doing the task not knowing if it will be up to spec, you compromise on your most important skill!
I did one once for Barclays for a Haskell role in London. A whole evening of work and they never even sent me a rejection email.
Seems ultimately the applicant and company weren't going to be a good fit. An interview is a process where both parties evaluate each other. This applicant set the bar too low for this company and wasted time when the signals were there from the start.
It's totally unreasonable to ask somebody to do so much free work, and the outputs are hard to judge, and likely not the candidate's own work anyhow, so almost entirely pointless.
Remember kids "just say no"
You had the right idea to begin with - never do take home assignments.
Second - this is the wrong approach. Nothing wrong with writing a small doc. Write it, then implement the necessary features (terminal inspired client that can read and send email), and test it. Literally a cli for read and send, tack on curses or use imgui. Do IMAP/POP/SMTP or emulate it. The job position is for a backend role in the email team.
Tack on bells and whistles later.
It’s pretty disrespectful in my opinion. It would be better if they took 90% of their applications and secretly threw them in the garbage than to waste applicants’ time evaluating them on vague criteria.
I have been lucky enough to be able to reject take homes. Next time, I might offer to do them for a flat rate of $200/hour but working for free is something I will avoid.
If it’s going to be used as a screening process, at least give clear guidelines and evaluate it pass/fail.
The requirements for even senior software engineers now are absurd (to say nothing of entry/mid level, which I think may not even exist anymore at most shops).
Companies are abusing their position and we should remember the most egregious of them and avoid them in the future.
You asked way too many questions.
The instructions seemed clear. They deliberately set an open ended task, and they want to see how well you independently add valuable features (to a well known format).
I agree that this is an obscene amount of unpaid work but if you're going to do it, you can't ask your hiring contact how to do it. It demonstrates a lack of independence, and that's something they told you they wanted for this role.
This is the same thing that happened to me with an Expensify interview back in 2011. After that, I decided to only do interviews in person, or where the person was on a call with me. Take home tests are not worth the risk of this crap.
Is it just me or he missed the point completely?
Look at all the third party services he uses! Nobody sane would pick that solution. That would be a completely maintainment nightmare.
He did not write an email client, he wrote a wrapper to some email client, which handles all the heavy lifting.
At the very least, write something that interact with a real (or fake) SMTP server. Other things are just cherry on top.
I read so many responses (the replies here to this post and to so many other similar posts) of the form
"Oh, I simply refuse to do interviews [of format xyz]. It's just not worth my time..."
I feel like such a worthless piece of crap when I read these. I apply to hundreds of places, and when someone comes along that even wants to talk to me or a miracle happens and I get to any sort of technical round, I simply DON'T HAVE THE OPTION to be turning them away for any reason.
Like, these companies have all the leverage right now, and lots of us have none. Responses like "just tell them no" seem so tone deaf. I guess some of you must be seriously baller, but it seems otherworldly to me.
This is close to how I feel when I read posts on Linkedin "demanding" that companies dispense with some unethical hiring practice (e.g. keeping up job postings for which they are not hiring, rejecting candidates without feedback, endless interview rounds, etc). I'm like, "Dude! The people who are doing this do not give a rat's ass about your preachy Linkedin post. We have no leverage here. Spare me your clickbait."
End of rant.
The people who are saying "just refuse" are humblebragging that they can afford to do so.
> We receive a lot of interest and applications for each position at Kagi which makes selection processes is extremely competitive.
This is the real take away. Don't put in outsized effort at companies that are highly subscribed. Everyone prides themselves on being "extremely competitive" and unless it's a FAANG (or well known quiet money fountain like Valve), it's probably not actually worth the effort.
If it's hot on HN, it's highly subscribed -- you just can't expect effort to be valued the same way when there are 10 applicants.
> We normally don’t provide feedback at this stage. We have had other submissions that were simpler and stronger, so we decided to continue forward with these candidates.
This would have been a great place to push and ask for a little more feedback (while being nice as possible since they have nearly no incentive to share more)... How could the other solutions have been simpler and "stronger" (whatever that means? more robust?) -- a few details on what you missed that they were looking for (tests? documentation? CI?) could at least add some value.
All that said -- finding a job is really hard right now. Wish you the best.
Without wanting to be unkind, this author misunderstands the purpose of the exercise, which is to demonstrate to another human being that you can write code that meets the company's standards (as in, would pass PR review), not to ship a fully-functional product solo. The initial email makes it explicit that they don't care if the product even works ("Can use a fake backend") and that the specifications are deliberately open-ended. A little intuition and empathy can tell you that they probably are not going to spend many hours reviewing a complex submission, so the project should optimize for demonstrability of code quality, not completeness.
"I would like to know what kind of response I could expect..." - This is also established from the beginning: you can expect either a "Looks good, let's do some interviews" or a "Sorry, not interested," based on the code you submit. They can't narrow down the choices prior to your submission, because they're grading your submission, not your proposal document with an extensive list of details that they already told you they're mostly ambivalent to.
"So it is funny that my project is so weak, yet it made them update the guidelines to something stricter." - Main character syndrome. As someone who has been on the other side of these kinds of reviews, the far more likely explanation is that they kept getting submissions where the build instructions didn't work (which is not disqualifying by itself; the authors may not be on the same OS as the reviewers) and they got tired of spending time dealing with it.
Ultimately, the failure here was not a technical one but a social one. The author tried very hard to do the thing that it seemed like they were asking for, not the thing they actually wanted. The hiring manager's unwillingness to engage with the proposal doc was itself a form of communication that they were not interested in this level of detail, it was just an implicit one.
It's common for engineer types to want all that kind of communication to be explicit, and I have a lot of sympathy for those folks, but the reality is that teamwork is a skill, and the ability to suss out what a stakeholder actually wants, but isn't saying due to incomplete information and/or office politics, is a reasonable thing to select for. The ambiguity of the prompt is a feature, not a bug: it's kept the author away from a company whose communication style they're not compatible with.
(that said, this project does sound excessively complex for a take-home)
This basically screens for desperation.
I love Kagi as a product. I do not love Kagi as a company (based on reports of founder, posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40011314)
That thread is hilarious... The dude bootstraps his own search/browser company, an incredibly difficult space, becomes profitable, and sends his customers t-shirts they didn't want. A bunch of HN users who have probably never even applied at a startup are criticizing him for how he runs his profitable business that he funded himself. If he wants to shovel every dollar of profit into a furnace, who cares? It's their money.
[dead]
[dead]
This (and other terrible interviewing processes) seem like the epitome of a problem being tackled from the wrong end: Trying to filter things coming OUT of the hiring funnel instead of filtering the things going IN to the hiring funnel.
Case-in-point: Modern job sites (cough LinkedIn). Every job listing has HUNDREDS of applicants within an hour of the job being posted. It's ridiculous. It should not be _that_ easy to apply for a job.
The outcome is what we are seeing today: A company posts a job, is inundated with 100s/1,000s of applications. In order to filter out the 80% of applicants who aren't deeply interested in the role, the company deliberately assigns busywork/road blocks to slow down the process.
The other 20% of applicants will then spend days/weeks/months in the hiring process on intro videos, take home challenges, etc. Basically anything that can be throw at the applicant that isn't time with a human.
The takeaway for each can be broken down into:
- 80% of applicants: didn't spend anything, didn't get anything, don't care
- 19% of applicants: spent time doing some/all of the busywork, _aren't_ hired, end up very frustrated at the amount of time/energy/resources that was spent only to be discarded
- The 1%: spent time doing some/all of the busywork, _are_ hired, feel great!
I'm not sure what the exact solution is, but I know that:
a) it's a race to the bottom (with the bottom being full automation on BOTH sides of the hiring process),
b) I'd much rather spend a fair bit of time putting together applications for 5 jobs and be seriously considered than spend very little time on 50 jobs only to be immediately rejected or handed an assignment before I even talk to a real human being
c) hiring teams hate the status quo, too.
I feel Kagi's entire point of the take home assignment is to see how people handled assignments if left to their own devices with little instructions to go off.
When good companies are trying to hire engineers, they don't hire based on skill alone. They also try to hire based on how a person performs given certain constraints like time and ambiguity.
Sharing a proposal and asking for more time was probably the polar opposite what they were looking for
I think a lot of product managers prefer to see simple, fast solutions to a take home assignment. Understandable and turned in on time.
I think this is a classic case of over delivering.
The requirements to spin up and obtain live services (postmark, torso), is a bit much, especially for a take home assignment.
Personally, If your app can’t be spun up and tested with a simple "docker compose up —build", then you are doing something wrong.
My rule of thumb for take home assignments: if I spend more than a few hours on it. Then I am probably over delivering and need to rethink approach and remove shit I don’t need. There’s no way in hell I’m spending a full working day, let alone a _week_ of free labor for these assignments.
Note: also not a fan of "take home assignments" either. Of the few companies that ask for these, I consequently ask to be compensated for my time. Only 1 company agreed to compensation, but others declined and I moved on.
did the take home assignment precede a chat with the team?
Honestly, you lost it with your first email asking for more direction, and every email after that just made it worse.
This was part of the assignment:
> This project tests your ability not only to code, but to deal with ambiguity and open-endedness, which is essential in R&D projects like Kagi Labs.
It was vague on purpose, they wanted to see how your decision making process goes with what you fill in the blanks with, without needing hand holding. You seemed to ignore this critical piece and went further and further against it with each message.
I had to scroll way too far to see this.
I cringed hard at the “proposal” he sent them (whyyy) + confusing the hiring manager as some sort of counselor + “will I get the job if I build this?”
Huge misread on OP’s part long before he wrote a line of code.
I tell everyone up front (recruiters and companies) I absolutely don't do homework assignments as part of a job interview. If they're unable to judge my skill level from an interview, that speaks volumes about them, not me.
Furthermore, if they are even the kind of company that thinks they're so special they can or should even ask for that, then it proves they're the kind of people I want to avoid like the plague to begin with. So when I'm asked to do a homework assignment it's actually a huge time saver for me, because it tells me right up front to avoid them.
All developers should refuse this. But there are always enough that are so desperate they'll do pretty much anything.
The (interview) game has changed and it will get worse because of more layoffs this year.
To standout, you have to be a bit creative and you must sustain yourself with your own company / startup. (4 basic instructions here) [0]
Companies do not care about you or your take home solution(s) unless you've built something that threatens their existence with a competing product that makes money and steals their users.
Stop playing by their rules with these interview 'games' unless you have lots of time. Spend your time elsewhere. You now have AI, and you should build a startup instead.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43212438
I like to validate advice. In that line, What startup have you successfully cloned with AI, and gotten traction on, per your own advice.
just use cursor lol
Yikes, I love Kagi but if I'd applied for this position and they gave me this assignment, I'd have told them to take a hike. This isn't an afternoon project, it's a full weekend. Maybe two. And are you supposed to be writing tests and stuff for this?
Moreover, this exercise tells you so little about the candidate and their experience. Sure, you know they can code (or did they just use Cursor?) but you have no idea whether they are good and addressing prompts and not at making wise choices. Who cares if the program can send email? What matters is that the client doesn't choke after 10k messages are received or that unicode is handled well: that's the sort of actual challenges you'd be doing at a company like Kagi, not making enormous toy projects.
Edit: Despite that, it seems like a bold choice for the author to build a web app instead of a TUI like the instructions lay out. One could say "terminal inspired" could include web applications but I think that's a stretch.
To be fair, they do explicitly say "build a minimal, terminal-inspired email client" and then "Email client can either be in the terminal (i.e. a TUI) or a web app" below, so even if it's a web app, they expected it to be terminal inspired, especially from the next paragraph in "Inspiration":
> Your implementation should take inspiration from existing terminal email tools like aerc, mutt, or even something like himalaya.
You can totally do terminal-inspired web app - http://www.coboloncogs.org/ is an extreme example, but for this assignment, even fixed-width font and compact layout would likely be enough.
Of course the OP in this post did nothing even close to that.
I did someting like this for a hobby project of mine: https:/nbittich.github.io/adana/
[flagged]
[flagged]
“but to deal with ambiguity and open-endedness, which is essential in R&D projects like Kagi Labs”…. Also based on the nonsense responses by the hiring manager, it sounds like one of 2 things
Either someone had a vision and is saying ‘Read my mind’
The alternative explanation seems to be, there is no vision, and the interviewee needs to define it.
In either scenario, the amount of communication, feedback, specificity, lack of respect for the power dynamics is appalling.