Comment on the key moments of an interview, in the report and the replay
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
Evaluación
- Dificultad
- 4/5
- Tiempo estimado
- 3-5 días
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 45/100
- Tipo de issue
- Nueva funcionalidad
- Claridad
- Bastante claro
- Estado de actividad
- Activo
- Stack tecnológico
- rust
- Área
- backend-api-design, full-stack
Línea de trabajo
Start from where phase judgments are produced and grounded by quote_is_grounded, then from where the report is assembled from the in-memory session, since the moment rules (hint requested, failed-then-passed test run, long response window, first REACTO/STAR step, large rewrite) must read recorded session events. Then trace the replay page's existing "Moments" list to attach notes to matching entries, using event occurrence times rather than evidence-recording times (see #169). Done means a capped "Key moments" section renders with quotes verified against the session, ungrounded notes dropped, scores unchanged, and replay links only when a recording exists.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Descripción
Who is affected
Candidates reviewing an interview afterwards. The report says what went well and what to improve, but in general terms ("relied on hints", "could have planned the dictionary update after the lookup"). It does not say where in the interview each of those happened. The replay page lists every editor snapshot, test run and response window under "Moments", but leaves the candidate to work out which ones matter and why.
Desired outcome
A handful of moments, picked from what the session recorded, each with one or two sentences of coaching tied to its time. They appear in the report as a "Key moments" section, and in the replay as notes on the matching entries under "Moments", so the candidate can open the moment and see the code and transcript as they were.
An example from one of my local test interviews, on Chargeback Pair Match:
- 04:40, tests failed on
[3,2,4], 6. You read the failing case, saw that 3 had matched itself, and moved the insert after the lookup. Next time, list the case where the target is twice one amount before writing the loop, and the bug never appears.
Proposed shape
- The platform picks the moments, by rule. The session already records the events that make a moment worth a note, so a model does not need to search for them: a hint requested (given, or withheld), a test run that failed and a later one that passed, a long response window, the first time each REACTO or STAR step was recorded, and a large rewrite of the code. A cap, for example at most six, keeps the list short.
- The report model writes the notes, grounded the way the phase judge is. Each note must quote the candidate's words or the code from that moment, and the server keeps a note only when the quote is found there, as
quote_is_groundeddoes for phase judgments. A note with no grounded quote is dropped, not shown with a warning. Notes coach; they do not score, and they change nothing in the report's scores. - The times come from when the event happened, not from when its evidence was recorded, so the notes do not repeat #169.
- It works without recording. The report is written from the session in memory, so the "Key moments" section does not need recording to be provisioned. The links into the replay appear only when a recording exists.
Later, and optional: a highlight video
With the moments and their notes in hand, a short video could walk through them: the code at each moment, the transcript as captions, and the note as narration. HyperFrames renders HTML compositions to video and would suit this. It needs Node.js, a headless Chrome and FFmpeg, which the runtime deliberately does without, so it belongs in an offline script that reads a downloaded report or replay, not in the server. It should use only the code, the board and the transcript, never the camera.
Open questions
- Should the moment rules be fixed, or depend on the interview loop (coding only, coding plus behavioral, whiteboard)?
- Does the note pass belong in the report call, or in a separate call after it? A separate call adds latency but keeps the report schema unchanged.
- How many moments are useful before the list becomes another wall of text?
Related: #169 (evidence timestamps), #242 (a review aimed at learning).
- Lenguaje dominante
- Rust
- Estrellas
- 160
- Forks
- 64
- Merge medio
- 1 d 9 h
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 103
Preparar el entorno
- Sin Dockerfile ni archivo de Docker Compose
- Sin plantilla de pull request
- Leer la guía de contribución
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Más de sysprog21/codetrial
-
Progress difficulty filter lists Hard before MediumPosiblemente ocupada @Pandamachi la tomó hace 1 día. Abierto
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 86/100
sysprog21/codetrial#281 · 1 comentario · 1 asignado ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Highlight the active line in the code editorPosiblemente ocupada @ArthurArthurArthur0817 la tomó hace 6 días. Abierto
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 75/100
sysprog21/codetrial#247 · 2 comentarios · 1 asignado ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 3/5 1-2 días Aptitud para principiantes 45/100
sysprog21/codetrial#291 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
enhancement
Dificultad 5/5 Más de una semana Aptitud para principiantes 20/100
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Visualize attempt score trends in the progress viewPosiblemente ocupada @onepch la tomó hace 1 día. Abierto
sysprog21/codetrial#275 · 1 asignado ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
Todos los issues de sysprog21/codetrial
Issues similares
-
area::tern difficulty::easy good first issue kind::cleanup triage::ready
Dificultad 1/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 88/100
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 76/100
eclipse-zenoh/zenoh#2842 · 2 comentarios ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
中文字符导致软件崩溃Abiertobug
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 62/100
Y-ASLant/ElegantClipboard#172 ·
-
bug documentation
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
SaboLabs/soroban-devkit#341 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
agent:sonnet-high enhancement priority: P2 ready-for-agent
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 82/100
shep-pm/shep-kelpie#652 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día