Mira el producto

Una evaluación generada real, abierta

La evaluación completa de 28 preguntas generada para una vacante real —ingeniero de software de IA junior— tal como la previsualiza un reclutador: todos los formatos, respuestas correctas, respuestas modelo, rúbricas y el razonamiento del examinador. Retirada permanentemente del banco.

Las preguntas se generan en el idioma de la evaluación — esta muestra incluye inglés y un ítem de idioma en japonés.

preguntas
27
preguntas
formatos
6
formatos
pilares medidos
6
pilares medidos
min de sesión
60
min de sesión

La descripción del puesto

Ingeniero de software de IA junior · Hub de Tokio · Híbrido · Banda A

We are looking for an ambitious Entry-Level AI Software Engineer to help build and scale our core AI capabilities. You will build production-ready backend services with Python and FastAPI to securely interact with LLM APIs, design and relentlessly refine prompts, build fault-tolerant AI workflows with Temporal, and instrument everything with OpenTelemetry…

Lo que decidió el motor

Pilares activos (de la config real)

BehaviouralSituationalCognitiveDomainAI Fluency

Complementos

AI Sandbox · Starter+Japanese · JLPT · min. N4 · +10 min

Ponderación inteligente: el motor calcula los pesos según rol y seniority — bloqueados con el primer candidato.

El idioma es un filtro apto/no apto — nunca entra en el compuesto.

La evaluación generada

Sesión: 28Q · ~60min

Formatos insignia

Tres formatos que ninguna biblioteca puede ofrecer — de esta misma evaluación.

AI SANDBOXEl USP — candidatos trabajando CON IA

Your team uses an AI assistant to summarise meeting notes for a public project channel. The current prompt produces summaries that are too long, unstructured, and — worse — repeat WHO said what, which the team agreed must never appear in the public channel. Fix the prompt so the summary is a short, structured digest of decisions and action items with no personal attributions.

Artefacto inicial

Summarize these meeting notes.

TEST INPUTS

Meeting notes — Project Falcon sync, Tuesday. Priya said the vendor contract is delayed again and blamed the legal review backlog. Marcus argued we should switch vendors. After a long discussion, the group decided to (1) extend the current vendor contract by one month, (2) have the ops team prepare a fallback vendor shortlist by Friday, and (3) move the launch date to the 15th. Dana volunteered to update the customer FAQ. Priya will chase legal daily. There was also a side discussion about the office move that reached no decision.

Escribe tu prompt para el asistente de IA…

Criterios de aprobación

  • Summary contains no attendee names or personal attributions
  • Summary keeps the three decisions (vendor extension, shortlist, launch date)
  • Summary is a bulleted or numbered list, not prose paragraphs
  • Summary is concise and readable at a glance (secondary)(secondary)

Verification Behaviour · 50%

Una respuesta fuerte: Diagnosed the root cause aloud in the prompt structure (the original gave no output contract at all), fixed both failures in one targeted revision, and used a final run to confirm rather than explore

Una respuesta débil: Resubmitted near-identical prompts without reading the failing test cases; no evidence of understanding WHY the summary leaked names or ran long

Prompt Craft · 30%

Una respuesta fuerte: Well-structured prompt with delimited input, explicit inclusion AND exclusion rules, output format specification, and an edge-case instruction (what to do when no decisions were made)

Una respuesta débil: Vague single-sentence prompts with no format, length, or exclusion constraints

Domain Grounding · 20%

Una respuesta fuerte: Handled confidentiality like a practitioner: excluded personal attributions categorically, kept decisions actionable without blame, and the summary stays useful to someone who was not present

Una respuesta débil: Ignored the confidentiality risk entirely — names or blame language survive in the output with no attempt to control them

LANGUAGE GATE · AUDIOAudio · una sola reproducciónJLPT · ja

Extra: pregunta de audio del filtro de idioma

音声の内容に基づき、新しい搭乗ゲート番号を選びなさい。

  1. 42番
  2. 58番
  3. 27番
  4. 73番

En la evaluación real el audio se reproduce exactamente una vez (forzado a nivel de base de datos). Aquí puedes repetirlo.

VIGNETTE SETUn escenario · tres decisiones puntuadas

Estímulo compartido

INCIDENT REPORT — 03:12 JST Checkout service error rate jumped from 0.2% to 14% over 20 minutes. The last deploy finished at 02:41. A dependency (payments-gateway SDK) released a new version yesterday. On-call engineer restarted one pod at 02:58; error rate briefly dipped, then returned. Black Friday sale starts at 09:00.

1.What is the FIRST action you take?

  1. A.Roll back the 02:41 deploy
  2. B.Restart all pods
  3. C.Pin the payments SDK to the previous version
  4. D.Page the payments vendor

Por qué esta respuesta: The deploy is the most recent controlled change and rollback is reversible in minutes; pod restarts already showed the failure isn't process-local, and the SDK pin is a build-level change that takes longer than a rollback.

2.The rollback completes but errors stay at 14%. What does that MOST strongly suggest?

  1. A.The deploy was not the cause
  2. B.The rollback failed silently
  3. C.Traffic volume is the cause
  4. D.The database is corrupted

Por qué esta respuesta: A completed rollback that changes nothing points away from the deploy — attention shifts to the environment change: yesterday's SDK release reaching production paths.

3.Given the 09:00 sale, which communication is MOST appropriate now?

  1. A.Wait until root cause is confirmed
  2. B.Notify stakeholders of impact, current status, and a next-update time
  3. C.Announce the sale will be delayed
  4. D.Post a public status page outage immediately

Por qué esta respuesta: Structured stakeholder communication with a committed next update is the incident-management standard; premature public announcements or silence both create larger problems.

#1WRITTEN ANSWER

In Python 3.12, you are designing a utility function that needs to accept an arbitrary number of non-keyword arguments (e.g., item identifiers) and an arbitrary number of keyword arguments (e.g., processing configuration options). How would you define this function's signature, and how would you access both types of arguments inside the function body?

0 / 200 Words

Respuesta modelo

To accept arbitrary non-keyword arguments, use `*args`, and for arbitrary keyword arguments, use `**kwargs` in the function signature (e.g., `def process_items(*args, **kwargs):`). Inside the function, `args` is a tuple containing all non-keyword arguments, and `kwargs` is a dictionary containing all keyword arguments passed by keyword.

Correctness · 60%Depth · 40%

¿Quieres una generada con tu descripción de puesto?

Únete a la lista de espera y generaremos una evaluación real desde uno de tus puestos abiertos.

¿Quieres una generada con tu descripción de puesto?