Clear
Your agent needs to operate under a strict latency SLA, but complex requests occasionally blow past it, causing timeouts that break the user experience.
How would you design the system to meet strict latency SLAs reliably?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Set a latency budget: Allocate time across stages, so each step has a bound that keeps the total within SLA.

  2. Enforce hard timeouts: Cap every call, so a slow stage fails fast instead of blowing the whole budget.

  3. Return partial results: Answer with what's ready when time runs out, so users get something within SLA.

  4. Route by complexity: Send simple requests to fast paths, so most traffic stays comfortably under the limit.

  5. Parallelize aggressively: Run independent steps concurrently, so latency is the slowest step, not their sum.

  6. Precompute and cache: Prepare likely results ahead, so hot paths return instantly.

  7. Cap output length: Limit generation, so variable-length responses don't unpredictably breach the SLA.

  8. Monitor tail latency: Track p95 and p99, so SLA breaches surface before users escalate.

Your agent's performance degrades over weeks as the world changes — new products, updated policies — but its knowledge stays frozen at deployment.
How would you design the system to keep the agent's knowledge current over time?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Externalize knowledge to retrieval: Keep facts in a refreshable store, so updates don't require retraining the model.

  2. Refresh the index: Re-ingest changed sources regularly, so retrieval reflects the current state of the world.

  3. Prefer live data for volatile facts: Fetch fast-changing values at query time, so answers stay current, not stale.

  4. Version knowledge: Tag content with freshness, so the agent prefers recent information over outdated versions.

  5. Detect staleness: Track how old retrieved content is, so aging knowledge surfaces before it misleads.

  6. Purge outdated content: Remove superseded documents, so retrieval doesn't resurface obsolete facts.

  7. Monitor accuracy over time: Watch for quality decay, so knowledge drift is caught as a measured signal.

  8. Automate update pipelines: Wire sources to auto-ingest, so freshness is maintained without manual effort.

Your agent needs to reason over very long documents, but stuffing everything into context is expensive and quality drops as context grows.
How would you design the system to reason effectively over very long contexts?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Retrieve, don't stuff: Pull only relevant sections, so you reason over what matters instead of the whole document.

  2. Chunk semantically: Split by structure and meaning, so retrieved pieces are coherent and self-contained.

  3. Summarize hierarchically: Build layered summaries for global questions, so whole-document reasoning doesn't need the full text.

  4. Route by question type: Use retrieval for facts and summaries for overviews, so each question type gets the right method.

  5. Manage the token budget: Cap how much context enters each call, so cost and quality stay controlled.

  6. Position key content well: Place critical info where models attend best, so important context isn't lost in the middle.

  7. Cache processing: Reuse chunked and embedded documents, so long inputs aren't reprocessed every turn.

  8. Cite precisely: Point back to exact sections, so long-context answers stay verifiable.

Your agent's outputs feed directly into downstream automated systems, and one malformed response caused a cascading failure across three services.
How would you design the system to safely integrate agent outputs into automated pipelines?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Validate before passing: Schema-check every output at the boundary, so malformed responses never enter downstream systems.

  2. Contract the interface: Define strict input-output contracts, so consumers know exactly what shape to expect and can reject deviations.

  3. Fail closed: Halt the pipeline on invalid output, so a bad response stops rather than cascading through services.

  4. Add circuit breakers: Isolate failing components, so one broken output doesn't take down the whole chain.

  5. Sanity-check values: Verify outputs against expected ranges, so subtly wrong data is caught before triggering actions.

  6. Buffer with queues: Decouple stages with queues, so a slow or failing consumer doesn't back-pressure everything upstream.

  7. Enable rollback: Make downstream actions reversible, so a bad output's effects can be undone cleanly.

  8. Monitor the boundary: Track output validity and downstream errors, so integration failures surface immediately.

Your agent occasionally hallucinates tool calls — inventing functions or parameters that don't exist — causing runtime errors in production.
How would you design the system to prevent and handle hallucinated tool calls?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Validate against schema: Check every tool call for valid names and parameters, so invented calls are rejected before execution.

  2. Constrain to available tools: Use function-calling modes that limit choices, so the model can't call tools that don't exist.

  3. Provide clear specs: Give precise tool definitions and examples, so the model has less reason to invent or misremember them.

  4. Reject and re-prompt: Return errors on invalid calls with feedback, so the agent corrects rather than crashing.

  5. Retrieve relevant tools: Surface only applicable tools per query, so the model isn't confused by a large or irrelevant toolset.

  6. Sanitize arguments: Validate parameter types and ranges, so malformed inputs are caught before hitting the real API.

  7. Fail gracefully: Handle invalid calls without crashing, so a hallucination degrades cleanly instead of causing an incident.

  8. Monitor hallucination rate: Track invalid call frequency, so rising hallucinations surface as a fixable, measured signal.

Your agent needs to make trade-off decisions — speed versus accuracy, cost versus quality — but it currently treats every request identically.
How would you design the system to make context-aware trade-off decisions per request?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Classify the request: Assess difficulty and stakes upfront, so handling matches what each request actually needs.

  2. Route by priority: Send urgent requests to fast paths and complex ones to thorough paths, so trade-offs fit the situation.

  3. Tier by user: Apply different quality-cost balances per plan, so resources align with what each tier justifies.

  4. Set per-request budgets: Allocate time and cost by importance, so high-stakes requests get more and trivial ones get less.

  5. Escalate when needed: Start cheap and upgrade on low confidence, so you spend more only when it's warranted.

  6. Respect constraints: Honor latency or cost limits per context, so trade-offs stay within each request's requirements.

  7. Make policy explicit: Encode trade-off rules centrally, so decisions are consistent rather than ad hoc.

  8. Measure outcomes: Track quality against cost per path, so trade-off policies are tuned by real results.

Your agent works great for expert users who know exactly what to ask, but novice users get lost and give up before getting value.
How would you design the system to serve users across a wide range of expertise?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Detect expertise level: Infer skill from phrasing and history, so responses match the user's actual knowledge.

  2. Adapt depth: Adjust detail and jargon to the user, so novices aren't overwhelmed and experts aren't slowed down.

  3. Guide novices: Offer suggestions and examples, so unsure users know what to ask and how to start.

  4. Ask clarifying questions: Fill gaps for vague requests, so beginners don't need to phrase things perfectly.

  5. Provide progressive disclosure: Start simple and offer more on request, so depth is available without being forced.

  6. Offer templates: Give starting points for common tasks, so novices get value without crafting perfect prompts.

  7. Explain reasoning: Surface how answers were reached, so less experienced users can learn and trust the output.

  8. Learn from usage: Track where novices struggle, so onboarding and guidance improve over time.

Your agent's tool calls sometimes succeed on the API side but the agent thinks they failed, causing duplicate actions like double-charging a customer.
How would you design the system to handle tool call reliability and avoid duplicate side effects?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Use idempotency keys: Attach a unique key per action, so retries are deduplicated instead of executing twice.

  2. Confirm before retry: Check whether an action succeeded before retrying, so ambiguous failures don't trigger duplicates.

  3. Make actions idempotent: Design tools so repeats are safe, so accidental re-execution causes no harm.

  4. Track action state: Record what's been executed, so the agent knows an action completed even if the response was lost.

  5. Set clear timeouts: Distinguish slow from failed, so you don't retry a call that actually succeeded.

  6. Separate read from write: Verify state with a read before rewriting, so you act on truth, not assumptions.

  7. Log every call: Record requests and outcomes, so duplicates and discrepancies are detectable and reversible.

  8. Alert on anomalies: Flag duplicate or conflicting actions, so side-effect errors are caught before they compound.

Your agent needs to complete a task that takes several minutes, but the user's connection drops midway and the entire job is lost.
How would you design the system for durable, resumable long-running tasks?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Decouple from the connection: Run tasks server-side independently, so a dropped client connection doesn't kill in-progress work.

  2. Persist task state: Checkpoint progress durably, so a job can resume from where it stopped rather than restarting.

  3. Assign task IDs: Give each job a trackable identifier, so users can reconnect and retrieve status or results later.

  4. Make steps idempotent: Ensure resumed work doesn't duplicate side effects, so recovery is safe to retry.

  5. Use a workflow engine: Adopt durable execution for retries and recovery, so long tasks survive crashes automatically.

  6. Notify on completion: Push results when done, so users get outcomes even after disconnecting mid-task.

  7. Set timeouts and limits: Bound total runtime, so abandoned jobs don't run forever consuming resources.

  8. Clean up state: Expire finished and abandoned tasks, so storage doesn't accumulate stale job data.

Your agent needs to scale from a prototype to millions of requests a day, but the architecture that worked at small scale is falling apart.
How would you design the system to scale from prototype to production volume?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Make it stateless: Externalize state so any worker handles any request, enabling horizontal scaling without sticky sessions.

  2. Scale horizontally: Add workers behind a load balancer, so capacity grows by adding instances rather than bigger machines.

  3. Queue and batch: Buffer and group work, so throughput scales without overwhelming downstream providers.

  4. Cache heavily: Reuse results across requests, so scale doesn't translate one-to-one into cost and latency.

  5. Manage rate limits: Centralize provider quotas at a gateway, so scaling traffic doesn't trigger cascading failures.

  6. Isolate components: Decouple retrieval, inference, and tools, so each scales independently to its own bottleneck.

  7. Monitor at scale: Track latency, cost, and errors per component, so bottlenecks surface as volume grows.

  8. Load-test early: Simulate production traffic before launch, so scaling failures are found in testing, not in production.

Your agent's evaluation relies on exact-match scoring, but for open-ended tasks it marks correct answers wrong just because the wording differs.
How would you design evaluation for open-ended, subjective outputs?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Use rubric grading: Score against explicit criteria, so answers are judged on substance rather than exact wording.

  2. Apply LLM judges: Have a model grade against rubrics, so open-ended quality scales beyond rigid string matching.

  3. Calibrate against humans: Validate judges on human-labeled data, so automated scores actually reflect real quality judgments.

  4. Check key facts: Verify required elements are present, so correctness is measured by content, not surface form.

  5. Combine methods: Pair judges with rule-based checks, so you catch both subjective quality and objective requirements.

  6. Reduce judge bias: Control for length and position effects, so scoring isn't skewed by irrelevant surface features.

  7. Ensemble for stability: Average multiple judge runs, so noisy single scores don't produce unreliable metrics.

  8. Audit regularly: Spot-check judge decisions against ground truth, so grading quality stays trustworthy over time.

Your agent's success depends on a complex prompt that one engineer wrote and understands, and when they left, no one could safely modify it.
How would you design prompts for maintainability and team ownership?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Modularize prompts: Break into reusable, labeled components, so parts can be understood and changed independently.

  2. Document intent: Comment why each section exists, so future editors change it with context, not fear.

  3. Version control: Track history with review, so any change is auditable and reversible if it breaks behavior.

  4. Externalize from code: Store prompts as managed artifacts, so they're editable without deep codebase knowledge.

  5. Template variables: Parameterize dynamic parts, so structure stays stable while inputs change cleanly.

  6. Test every change: Run evals on edits, so modifications are validated rather than made blindly.

  7. Trim complexity: Remove redundant instructions, so the prompt stays simple enough to reason about.

  8. Share ownership: Assign clear owners and reviewers, so no single person is a bottleneck or point of failure.

Your agent gives inconsistent answers to the same user across sessions because it has no memory of past interactions or stated preferences.
How would you design personalization and continuity across sessions?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Persist user profiles: Store durable preferences and facts, so the agent remembers context across separate sessions.

  2. Retrieve on demand: Pull relevant user memory per request, so personalization applies without bloating every prompt.

  3. Scope by identity: Namespace all memory per user, so one person's context never bleeds into another's session.

  4. Store selectively: Save only durable, useful facts, so memory stays clean and doesn't accumulate noise.

  5. Update and expire: Refresh changed preferences and age out stale ones, so personalization stays current, not contradictory.

  6. Apply only when relevant: Use stored facts where they change the answer, so personalization helps rather than feeling intrusive.

  7. Redact sensitive data: Strip PII before persisting, so long-term memory doesn't become a compliance liability.

  8. Let users control it: Allow viewing and deleting memory, so personalization stays transparent and user-governed.

Your agent processes user uploads — PDFs, images, spreadsheets — but malformed or malicious files occasionally crash it or trigger unexpected behavior.
How would you design safe, robust handling of user-uploaded files?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Validate file types: Check format and structure on upload, so malformed or disguised files are rejected before processing.

  2. Scan for threats: Run malware and content scans, so malicious uploads never reach parsing or execution stages.

  3. Enforce size limits: Cap file size and page count, so oversized uploads can't exhaust memory or blow past token budgets.

  4. Sandbox parsing: Extract content in isolation, so a malicious file can't compromise the host or leak into other requests.

  5. Handle failures gracefully: Catch parsing errors cleanly, so a broken file returns a clear message instead of crashing the agent.

  6. Sanitize extracted text: Treat file content as untrusted data, so embedded instructions can't hijack the agent via injection.

  7. Route by type: Use the right extractor per format, so each file type is parsed correctly rather than through one brittle path.

  8. Log processing: Record what was uploaded and extracted, so failures and abuse are traceable and debuggable.

Your agent needs to onboard new tools and capabilities frequently, but every addition requires code changes, testing, and redeployment, slowing you down.
How would you design the system to add new tools and capabilities quickly and safely?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Standardize tool interface: Define a uniform contract for tools, so new ones plug in without bespoke integration each time.

  2. Register dynamically: Load tools from config or a registry, so adding capability doesn't require core code changes.

  3. Adopt a protocol: Use standards like MCP, so external tools integrate through a common interface rather than custom glue.

  4. Validate on registration: Check each tool's schema and behavior, so broken tools are caught before they reach production.

  5. Sandbox new tools: Run additions in isolation first, so untested capabilities can't damage the live system.

  6. Test automatically: Run each tool through an eval suite, so new capabilities are verified before being enabled.

  7. Roll out gradually: Enable new tools for limited traffic first, so issues surface on a small slice before full release.

  8. Retrieve tools per query: Surface only relevant tools, so a growing toolset doesn't degrade selection accuracy or bloat prompts.

Your agent relies on a single vector database, and when it goes down or gets slow, your entire product's retrieval breaks with no fallback.
How would you design retrieval infrastructure for resilience and availability?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Replicate the index: Maintain redundant copies, so a single node failure doesn't take down all retrieval.

  2. Add fallback retrieval: Keep a secondary search path like keyword search, so degraded vector search still returns usable results.

  3. Cache frequent queries: Serve common retrievals from cache, so hot paths survive even when the index is slow or down.

  4. Set timeouts: Bound retrieval latency, so a slow index fails fast instead of hanging the whole request.

  5. Degrade gracefully: Answer with reduced context when retrieval fails, so the agent still responds rather than erroring out.

  6. Monitor health: Track index latency and errors, so problems are caught and failed over before users notice.

  7. Load-balance queries: Distribute across replicas, so no single node becomes a bottleneck under heavy traffic.

  8. Plan recovery: Keep index rebuilds and backups ready, so you can restore quickly after a catastrophic failure.

Your agent's behavior is controlled by prompts scattered across the codebase, and different teams keep making conflicting changes that break each other's features.
How would you design centralized, collaborative prompt and config management?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Centralize storage: Keep all prompts and configs in one managed system, so nothing is scattered or duplicated across the codebase.

  2. Version control: Track history with review and rollback, so every change is auditable and reversible when it breaks something.

  3. Namespace by feature: Scope prompts to owning teams, so changes to one feature can't silently break another's behavior.

  4. Require review: Gate changes behind approval and evals, so conflicting or regressive edits are caught before they ship.

  5. Externalize from code: Store prompts outside application code, so changes don't require redeploys and are easier to manage.

  6. Test on change: Run eval suites against every edit, so prompt changes are validated rather than shipped blindly.

  7. Enable safe experiments: Support per-variant configs, so teams test changes in isolation without affecting shared behavior.

  8. Document ownership: Record who owns and why each prompt exists, so changes are made with full context, not guesswork.

Your agent needs to work offline or in low-connectivity environments, but it currently depends entirely on cloud LLM APIs that aren't always reachable.
How would you design the system to operate reliably with intermittent or no connectivity?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Run local models: Deploy smaller on-device models, so core functionality works without any network connection at all.

  2. Cache aggressively: Store recent results and context locally, so common requests are served offline from cache.

  3. Queue for sync: Buffer requests needing the cloud, so they execute automatically once connectivity returns.

  4. Degrade gracefully: Fall back to reduced capability offline, so users get partial help rather than a dead system.

  5. Tier by capability: Handle simple tasks locally and defer complex ones, so the offline experience stays useful within its limits.

  6. Sync efficiently: Reconcile local and cloud state on reconnect, so offline work merges cleanly without conflicts or data loss.

  7. Preload context: Bundle likely-needed data in advance, so the agent has what it needs before connectivity drops.

  8. Signal state clearly: Show users online versus offline mode, so expectations match the capability currently available.

Your agent occasionally produces outputs that are subtly biased against certain user groups, and you only find out when someone reports it publicly.
How would you design the system to detect and mitigate bias and fairness issues?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Test across groups: Evaluate outputs on inputs varying by demographic, so disparate treatment surfaces in testing rather than in public complaints.

  2. Build fairness evals: Measure outcome differences across cohorts, so bias becomes a tracked metric instead of an anecdotal surprise.

  3. Curate balanced examples: Use representative few-shot examples, so the model isn't anchored to skewed patterns that reinforce bias.

  4. Filter biased outputs: Screen responses for discriminatory content, so problematic answers are caught before reaching users.

  5. Audit training and retrieval data: Check sources for skew, so bias isn't silently imported from imbalanced underlying data.

  6. Add human review: Route sensitive decisions to people, so high-stakes fairness calls don't rest solely on the model.

  7. Enable reporting: Give users a way to flag bias, so real-world cases feed directly back into detection and fixes.

  8. Monitor continuously: Track fairness metrics over time, so drift toward biased behavior is caught before it spreads.

Your agent needs to handle a request that involves both real-time data and slow deep reasoning, but users expect a fast response either way.
How would you design the system to balance responsiveness with slow, complex work?
General Medium

Answer:

  1. Respond incrementally: Stream partial results as they're ready, so users see progress immediately instead of staring at a blank screen.

  2. Acknowledge fast: Return an instant confirmation or preview, so the user knows the request is being handled while deep work continues.

  3. Split fast and slow paths: Answer quick parts immediately and defer heavy reasoning, so simple needs aren't blocked by complex ones.

  4. Run work in background: Offload long tasks to async jobs, so the interface stays responsive while processing completes separately.

  5. Fetch live data just-in-time: Pull real-time values at the moment needed, so answers stay current without slowing the whole pipeline.

  6. Parallelize independent work: Run retrieval, tools, and reasoning concurrently, so total latency is the slowest step, not their sum.

  7. Set expectations: Show status and estimated timing for slow work, so waiting feels intentional rather than broken.

  8. Cache and reuse: Store results of expensive reasoning, so repeat or similar requests return fast instead of recomputing.