The recruiting experience was smooth and the recruiter was communicative throughout. The technical interview itself was well-structured with a real codebase, practical bugs to find, and a feature implementation exercise. The format was clearly explained upfront and the interviewer was friendly during the session.
Where I'd caution other candidates: the post-interview feedback was inconsistent with what happened in the session. The interviewer verbally confirmed multiple times that my reasoning was correct and I was on the right track, but the written feedback stated I was unable to work through the problem and did not communicate. I completed all the feature exercise and two bonus questions, but the feedback suggested incomplete work. Feedback also included characterizations of my demeanor that didn't match the session as I experienced it. It felt as though the feedback was meant for a different interview that happened.
Additionally, I had two interviews with the company in the same week with different interviewers. The assessments of my communication style and collaboration were contradictory enough that they read as two different people evaluating two different candidates.
The role and the team seemed genuinely interesting, and I don't think the process reflects poorly on the company as a whole. But if you move forward with this process, know that written feedback may not accurately reflect your actual performance, and there may be limited calibration happening between interviewers.
