1 min lesson

Narrate accept, reject, correct

Talk through the example in "Narrate accept, reject, correct", then name the result it is meant to produce.

Narrate accept, reject, correctThe running commentary is the signal

What to say out loud as you go - the interviewer is grading the reasoning, not the keystrokes

// Agent proposes a fix for the failing test:
ACCEPT  -> "This matches the existing test helper pattern and it
           actually addresses the race, not just the symptom. Keeping it."

REJECT  -> "It's mocking the network call to make the test pass. That hides
           the real bug. Throwing this out and fixing the timeout instead."

CORRECT -> "Right shape, wrong error type. This repo throws a typed
           DomainError, not a bare Error - I'll fix that by hand."

VERIFY  -> "Before I trust this, I'm opening the source for that method
           to confirm the signature instead of assuming the agent's right."

Clarifying questions are a green flag

Asking a sharp question early reads as senior, not unsure. "Is this test flaky because of timing or because of shared state?" before you touch code shows you scope a problem before solving it, the same instinct that keeps an agent from running off in the wrong direction. Candidates who silently start typing and candidates who ask three vague questions both score lower than the one who asks the single question that changes the approach.

Learn more

Advanced table

The trap: trusting the output

Move: Accepting a diff
Judgment (what they want): You read it, name why it's right and verify the risky parts
Autopilot (what sinks you): You accept a 40-line change without reading it because the tests went green

Move: An API you don't know
Judgment (what they want): You open the source or docs to confirm the method exists
Autopilot (what sinks you): You ship the agent's call and hope the method is real

Move: A failing test
Judgment (what they want): You fix the underlying cause and say so
Autopilot (what sinks you): You let the agent mock the failure away to get a green check

Move	Judgment (what they want)	Autopilot (what sinks you)
Accepting a diff	You read it, name why it's right and verify the risky parts	You accept a 40-line change without reading it because the tests went green
An API you don't know	You open the source or docs to confirm the method exists	You ship the agent's call and hope the method is real
A failing test	You fix the underlying cause and say so	You let the agent mock the failure away to get a green check

Green tests with unread diffs is the exact anti-pattern this round hunts for.

Watch out

Going silent is the quiet killer. If you solve the problem correctly but never narrate a single accept-or-reject decision, the interviewer can't distinguish your judgment from luck and judgment is the entire rubric. Talk through the boring parts too, because a clean reasoning trace on an easy fix still proves you're driving the tool rather than being driven by it.

QIn the technical screen the agent proposes a fix that makes the failing test pass by mocking the network call. The tests go green. What's the strongest move and what does it signal?

Narrate accept, reject, correct

Step 1 of 2