Voyez le produit

Une évaluation générée réelle, ouverte

L'évaluation complète de 28 questions générée pour un poste réel — ingénieur logiciel IA junior — telle qu'un recruteur la prévisualise : tous les formats, réponses attendues, réponses modèles, grilles de notation et raisonnement de l'examinateur. Définitivement retirée de la banque.

Les questions sont générées dans la langue de l'évaluation — cet échantillon montre l'anglais plus un item de langue en japonais.

questions
27
questions
formats
6
formats
piliers mesurés
6
piliers mesurés
min de session
60
min de session

L'offre d'emploi

Ingénieur logiciel IA junior · Hub de Tokyo · Hybride · Bande 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…

Ce que le moteur a décidé

Piliers actifs (config réelle)

BehaviouralSituationalCognitiveDomainAI Fluency

Modules

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

Pondération intelligente : le moteur calcule les poids selon le rôle et la séniorité — verrouillés au premier candidat.

La langue est une barrière réussite/échec — jamais intégrée au score composite.

L'évaluation générée

Session: 28Q · ~60min

Formats signature

Trois formats qu'aucune bibliothèque ne peut offrir — issus de cette même évaluation.

AI SANDBOXL'USP — les candidats travaillent AVEC l'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.

Artefact de départ

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.

Rédigez votre prompt pour l'assistant IA…

Critères de réussite

  • 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%

Une réponse forte: 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

Une réponse faible: 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%

Une réponse forte: 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)

Une réponse faible: Vague single-sentence prompts with no format, length, or exclusion constraints

Domain Grounding · 20%

Une réponse forte: 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

Une réponse faible: Ignored the confidentiality risk entirely — names or blame language survive in the output with no attempt to control them

LANGUAGE GATE · AUDIOAudio · lecture uniqueJLPT · ja

Bonus : question audio de barrière linguistique

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

Dans l'évaluation réelle, l'audio n'est joué qu'une seule fois (imposé au niveau base de données). Ici, vous pouvez le rejouer.

VIGNETTE SETUn scénario · trois décisions notées

Stimulus partagé

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

Pourquoi cette réponse: 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

Pourquoi cette réponse: 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

Pourquoi cette réponse: 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

Réponse modèle

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%

Vous en voulez une générée depuis votre offre ?

Rejoignez la liste d'attente — nous générerons une évaluation réelle depuis l'un de vos postes ouverts.

Vous en voulez une générée depuis votre offre ?