Structured review of take-home submissions: code quality, testing, and documentation.
Evaluates whether the candidate addressed all stated requirements and handled edge cases.
All core requirements are met with attention to edge cases. Candidate prioritized effectively if time-constrained and documented what they would add with more time.
Core requirements are missing, obvious edge cases are ignored, or the submission feels rushed with no prioritization of what matters most.
Assesses the readability, structure, and maintainability of the submitted code.
Code is well-organized with clear separation of concerns, meaningful naming, consistent style, and appropriate abstraction. It reads like production code, not a hackathon entry.
Code is a single file with no structure, variable names are cryptic, there's excessive duplication, or the abstraction level is inappropriate (either God objects or over-engineered).
Evaluates the thoughtfulness of architectural choices and the candidate's ability to justify them.
Candidate makes appropriate architectural choices for the problem size, avoids over-engineering, and can articulate trade-offs. The design allows for reasonable extension.
Architecture is either over-engineered for the scope (enterprise patterns for a CRUD app) or has no structure at all. Candidate cannot explain why they made the choices they did.
Evaluates the quality and coverage of tests submitted with the assignment.
Meaningful tests cover the critical paths and edge cases, not just happy paths. Tests are well-organized, readable, and the testing strategy matches the problem complexity.
No tests at all, tests only cover trivial cases, or tests are tightly coupled to implementation details and would break with any refactoring.
Assesses whether the project is easy to set up, run, and understand through documentation.
README includes clear setup instructions, documents assumptions and trade-offs, and explains design decisions. The project runs successfully following the instructions.
No README, setup instructions are missing or broken, or there's no documentation of the decisions made during implementation.
Interview notes go here...