A Software Engineer at Kraken Technology Group is at the heart of building one of the world's most trusted and high-scale digital asset platforms. Your work directly impacts the security, reliability, and performance of systems that manage billions of dollars in assets. This role is not just about writing code; it is about engineering robust, secure, and scalable solutions that operate in a high-stakes, 24/7 environment.
You will contribute to complex problem spaces ranging from low-latency matching engines and distributed systems to high-performance frontend interfaces. The work is challenging, requiring a deep understanding of your tech stack—often including Rust—and a mindset that prioritizes security, correctness, and system efficiency. You will collaborate with cross-functional teams to solve real-world problems, ensuring the Kraken Technology Group platform remains resilient and user-focused.
Recruiter Screening
reportedThe person on this call usually cannot evaluate your code and does not need to. They write a short paragraph, and that paragraph is what a hiring manager skims when deciding who to put on your loop. So the test is not whether your work was hard, it is whether a non-engineer can repeat it correctly. Name systems by what they did rather than by their internal codename, give each project a shape (what was breaking, what you changed, what happened after), and keep the whole walkthrough near ninety seconds. Depth that cannot survive a paraphrase reads as vagueness.
What to demonstrate
- Whether a non-engineer can restate your projects without distorting them, since their paraphrase is what travels to the hiring manager, not your sentences
- Whether each project has a shape rather than a stack list: the failure or constraint, the change you made, the result and how it was measured
- Whether you can say what was yours inside a team project without either inflating it or disappearing into the plural
How to prepare
- Rewrite each headline project as two sentences with no internal system names and no acronyms outside your company, then say them to someone outside engineering and have them repeat them back. Fix whatever came back wrong
- Attach one measured number to each project: the baseline, the change, and the window it was measured over. Where nothing was ever measured, say that plainly rather than reaching for a plausible percentage
- Time the background walkthrough against a clock. If it runs past two minutes, compress the earliest role to a single clause and spend the recovered time on the most recent one
Technical Assessment
reportedMost of the time lost in this format is not lost to thinking. It goes to a standard-library call you half-remember, an off-by-one in a loop bound, and a debugging loop that mutates code at random until something passes. When output is wrong, stop re-reading the whole function: take the smallest input that reproduces it and walk the state through by hand, printing intermediates if the environment allows. Guessing at a fix without a failing case you understand is how a five-minute bug becomes twenty, and the clock does not pause while you do it.
What to demonstrate
- Whether you reach the right structure without a detour, and can write it from memory rather than only recall that one exists
- Whether overflow is considered where the language has fixed-width integers, since a signed 32-bit value stops at 2,147,483,647 and then wraps in Java, is undefined behaviour in C++, and does not arise in Python, whose integers grow instead
- Whether recursion depth is treated as a constraint on large inputs, given that CPython's default limit is 1000 frames and a deep recursion can exhaust the stack in any language where an iterative version would not
- Whether a failing case is isolated and explained before any edit is made to the code
How to prepare
- From an empty file and with no references open, implement the pieces you lean on most: a heap push and pop, an iterative DFS with an explicit stack, and a binary search whose midpoint is written lo + (hi - lo) / 2, which avoids the overflow that (lo + hi) / 2 can hit in a fixed-width integer type
- Time yourself on the ten library calls you look up most, such as sorting with a custom comparator, splitting and joining strings, and finding the next key at or above a value in an ordered map, until the lookup is gone
- Take a solution you know is broken and, before touching it, write one sentence naming the input, the expected value and the actual value. Repeat until you do it without deciding to.
Technical Rounds
reportedWhat this round decides is narrow: whether you can produce code that runs and is correct on inputs nobody showed you. An elegant solution that does not compile scores below a plain one that does, so write a correct brute force first, say out loud that you know its cost, and improve it with the working version still on screen. What separates strong answers is who finds the broken case. Trace your own code against an empty input, a single element, and duplicate keys before you say you are finished, because being told is far more expensive than noticing.
What to demonstrate
- Whether degenerate inputs get checked without being asked for: an empty collection, one element, every element equal, and the extreme value the input type allows
- Whether the complexity you state matches the code you actually wrote, including a sort or a copy sitting inside a loop
- Whether the finished answer is verified against the worked examples before you call it done, rather than assumed correct because the code reads correctly
How to prepare
- Take five problems you have already solved and, without running anything, write down what each returns for empty input, a single element, and all-duplicates. Then run them and count how many you predicted wrong.
- Drill the brute force as its own skill: on ten problems, write only the obviously-correct slow version and time how long it takes to get it passing. If that is more than a few minutes, that is what to practise, not the optimal version.
- Add a fixed last step before you submit anything, reading only the loop bounds and the initial value of each accumulator, which is where most off-by-one errors live
Final Rounds
reportedCoding rounds mostly set a floor. They decide whether you clear the bar, not where you land on the ladder. Level tends to come out of the design discussion and the ownership stories, so the question worth auditing beforehand is whether the scope you describe matches the scope of the job. Work that stops at your own service, or a story whose hard part was writing the code rather than getting several people to agree on an interface, reads a level below where you think you are interviewing, and that gap is usually resolved downwards.
What to demonstrate
- Whether the largest thing you describe owning ran end to end — the decision, the migration path, the rollout, and what you did when it went wrong — or stopped at the change you merged
- Whether design answers include what you would not build, what you would defer, and what you would measure before committing, rather than only what the boxes are
- Whether a disagreement in a story was settled with something checkable — a benchmark, a prototype, a written proposal — instead of by seniority or by waiting it out
- Whether you can say which calls you made alone and which you escalated, and why the line sat where it did
How to prepare
- Write your largest piece of owned work as a timeline of decisions — who decided what, when, and what you did when the plan broke — then delete every sentence whose subject is "we" and see how much survives
- Take one system you know well and drill the migration answer: how old and new paths run side by side under live traffic, how you compare their outputs, what the rollback is once writes are going to both, and which step you would not automate
- Map each line of the ladder in the job posting to a specific thing you have done, find the line you cannot support, and prepare the closest evidence you have plus an honest account of the gap
PracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.
Checking a quota with a select and then writing
Under read-committed isolation, two concurrent transactions both observe a count below the limit and both insert, so the limit is exceeded by exactly the concurrency. Repeatable read does not rescue it either: it provides a stable snapshot, and this is write skew, which snapshot isolation permits by design. The options are serialisable isolation, which detects the conflict and aborts one transaction with a serialisation failure and therefore obliges the caller to retry; a single statement with the predicate inside the write; or a constraint that makes the surplus insert fail outright. The reason this pattern survives review is that it is correct in every test that runs one request at a time.
One shared connection pool for every tenant and every query class
A single tenant with a large table and a missing index can occupy every connection with slow queries, and every other tenant then waits in connection acquisition -- a queue invisible in database metrics, because the database itself looks healthy while the application starves. Containment is bulkheads: separate pools or per-tenant concurrency caps for interactive requests, background jobs and exports, a statement timeout low enough that a pathological query dies before it accumulates, and an idle-in-transaction timeout so a stuck client cannot pin a connection and its locks indefinitely. One caveat worth knowing in advance: if a transaction-pooling proxy sits in front of the database, session-scoped behaviour changes, so session-level advisory locks and settings applied outside a transaction do not survive the way they do on a direct connection.
Issuing one query per row of a result set
Fetch related rows in a single batched query keyed by the ids you already hold, or join them into the original query. A per-row round trip multiplies network latency by the row count, and it looks perfectly fine against the ten rows in your development database.
Assuming the bug is in the framework
Suspect your own code first: read the stack trace top to bottom, check which versions are actually installed rather than which ones you believe are, and reproduce in isolation before blaming a library that thousands of people run daily. When the fault really is upstream, you need that minimal reproduction to say so credibly anyway.
Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.
What does Mutex::lock return and why?
What does Mutex::lock return and why?
Approach
- Name what is shared across threads and what owns each piece of state.
- Reach for the cheapest primitive that closes the race, not the broadest lock.
- Say what the runtime actually does before reasoning about the code.
Follow-up
- How would you prove the race exists rather than suspect it?
- Where could this allocate more than you expect?
How does given async Rust code execute?
How does given async Rust code execute?
Approach
- Distinguish a value from a reference to it, and say which one you handed out.
- Say what the runtime actually does before reasoning about the code.
- Reach for the cheapest primitive that closes the race, not the broadest lock.
Follow-up
- What happens if two callers reach this at the same time?
- Where could this allocate more than you expect?
Parse and verify a timestamped multi-signature webhook header
An inbound webhook carries a signature header of at most 1 KiB shaped t=<unix seconds>,v1=<64 hex chars>, with up to five v1 values during secret rotation and possibly unknown scheme keys. You hold the raw request body bytes and the currently active signing secrets. Write the parser and the verifier: accept when any active secret reproduces a signature and the timestamp is within a five-minute tolerance in either direction, reject otherwise. Single left-to-right pass over the header, no regular expression. State what is inside the MAC and why.
Approach
- Parse in one scan: split on
,, then on the first=only, since a value may itself contain=under a future scheme. Accepttexactly once and treat a secondtas a reject rather than last-wins. Push everyv1onto a short list and ignore any other key, so av2can be introduced later without breaking this verifier. - Say what is signed: HMAC-SHA256 over the exact byte string
<t>.<raw body bytes>, yielding 32 bytes or 64 hex characters. The timestamp sits inside the MAC because otherwise an attacker replays yesterday's body with its still-valid signature and only has to edit the header timestamp. - Hash the bytes as received. Verifying against a re-serialised JSON body is the usual defect: key order, whitespace and number formatting all change the bytes while the parsed objects compare equal, so signatures fail for honest senders and the popular 'fix' is to stop checking.
- Compare in constant time over fixed-length digests. Decode the hex to 32 bytes, accumulate
acc |= a[i] ^ b[i]across the whole length, and testacc == 0at the end. Evaluate every candidate without an early exit; at five candidates that is five HMACs over the body, linear in body size and negligible beside the network. - Apply the tolerance as a two-sided bound, rejecting when
|now - t| > 300seconds. A sender whose clock runs ahead of yours is an ordinary case, and an unbounded future timestamp is a free replay window. - Complexity: O(L) over the header producing k candidates, plus k HMACs at O(|body|) each. Space is O(k) beyond the body itself. Do the cheap rejections, including the tolerance check, before any cryptography runs.
Worked solution 15 min
- Write the grammar on one line before coding:
header := field (',' field)*,field := key '=' value, split on the first=only. - Implement the parser to return
{t: int, v1: [hex, ...]}, rejecting a missingt, a duplicatet, anyv1that is not 64 hex characters, and a header over 1 KiB, all before any cryptography runs. - Implement the verifier: for each active secret compute
HMAC-SHA256(secret, f'{t}.'.encode() + raw_body), compare it in constant time against each parsedv1, and OR the results with no early exit. - Test with a valid signature; the same body with
tmoved 400 seconds into the past; the same body witht400 seconds into the future; a header carrying an unknownv2=alongside a validv1; and a body re-serialised with different JSON key order.
Follow-up
- The body is 40 MB. What changes about where you verify, and what can you do before the whole body has arrived?
- A customer reports that signatures fail for exactly the requests whose body contains a non-ASCII character. What is your first hypothesis?
- How do you rotate the signing secret with no failed deliveries, and how long do both secrets stay live?
Enforce a concurrent-run quota that survives simultaneous requests
A plan allows at most 20 concurrently running rows in job_run per tenant. The table holds run_id, tenant_id, workspace_id, status (queued, leased, running, succeeded, failed, timed_out, cancelled, lost), lease_token, leased_until, started_at and finished_at. Today the service runs select count(*) from job_run where tenant_id = $1 and status = 'running', compares the result to 20, then inserts. Under load a tenant exceeds the cap by exactly the number of concurrent requests. Name the anomaly, say which isolation levels do and do not prevent it, and give a version that holds, as SQL.
Approach
- Name it: write skew. Each transaction reads a predicate (the count of running rows), neither modifies what the other read, and both then insert rows that jointly violate an invariant no single row expresses. Read committed permits it. So does repeatable read, because snapshot isolation's first-updater-wins check fires only on conflicting row updates, and these are inserts touching disjoint rows.
- Enumerate the fixes with their real costs. SERIALIZABLE works: PostgreSQL's SSI tracks the predicate read and aborts one transaction with SQLSTATE 40001, which obliges the caller to retry and makes the abort rate rise with contention on a hot tenant. Folding the predicate into the write as
insert ... select ... where (select count(*) ...) < 20narrows the race to the statement's snapshot but does not close it under read committed. - Give the version that holds at read committed: serialise on a row both transactions must touch.
update tenant_concurrency set running = running + 1 where tenant_id = $1 and running < 20 returning runningupdates zero rows when the cap is reached, and zero rows is the rejection. This works because at read committed a blocked UPDATE re-evaluates its WHERE clause against the newly committed row; at repeatable read the same statement raises a serialisation error instead, so the isolation level changes the calling contract. - State the cost you just bought. That row is now a per-tenant serialisation point, so admission throughput for the tenant is bounded by one divided by the lock hold time; at a 2 ms hold that is roughly 500 admissions/second. Keep the critical section to the single UPDATE, with no network call or scheduling decision inside the transaction, and decrement in the same transaction that writes the terminal status.
- Close the leak the status enum implies: a run can end as
lost, so a crashed worker otherwise consumes a slot forever. Reconcile on a schedule againststatus = 'running' and leased_until < now(), and treat the counter as a fast path overjob_run, which stays the system of record.
Follow-up
- Write the retry loop for the SERIALIZABLE version. What does the caller see when it keeps aborting, and what bounds the retries?
- Two regions each keep a counter. What is the effective cap, and what does admission do when the counter store is unreachable?
- The cap changes mid-flight on a plan upgrade. Do running jobs get killed, and what does the counter row look like during the change?
Find the join that inflates every invoice total
invoice_line_item holds line_id, invoice_id, tenant_id, sku, rate_tier, quantity, unit_price_micros, amount_minor (bigint), currency, kind, voided_at. invoice_payment_attempt holds attempt_id, invoice_id, tenant_id, amount_minor, status (succeeded, failed, pending), created_at, and an invoice has many attempts. A finance report runs select i.invoice_id, sum(l.amount_minor), count(p.attempt_id) from invoice i join invoice_line_item l using (invoice_id) join invoice_payment_attempt p using (invoice_id) group by 1 and the totals are wrong. Say precisely what the sum now equals, and write a version that is also correct for invoices with zero attempts.
Approach
- Compute what the query actually returns before fixing it. The two joins form a Cartesian product per invoice, so each line row repeats once per attempt row:
sum(l.amount_minor)is the true total multiplied by the attempt count, andcount(p.attempt_id)is attempts times lines. Three lines and two attempts report double the money and six attempts. - Reject the reflex repair.
count(distinct p.attempt_id)does fix the count, because attempt_id is unique.sum(distinct l.amount_minor)does not fix the sum, because two legitimate lines with equal amounts collapse into one. DISTINCT inside an aggregate deduplicates values, not rows, and the difference stays invisible until two lines happen to match. - Aggregate each branch to invoice grain before joining: one CTE summing lines by invoice_id, one counting attempts by invoice_id, then join the two results. A LATERAL subquery per invoice is equivalent and sometimes plans better when the outer set is small. Either way every aggregate stays at the grain it was defined at.
- Keep invoices with no attempts by making the attempt branch a LEFT JOIN with
coalesce(attempt_count, 0). An inner join here silently drops every unpaid invoice, which is usually the exact population finance is asking about. - Push each filter to its own grain:
where l.voided_at is nullbelongs inside the line CTE, not the outer query, or it would also filter the attempt branch through the join. Put the tenant predicate on both branches, since the denormalised tenant_id is what stops a wrong join crossing tenants. - Leave yourself a standing check: an invoice total is a function of its non-voided lines and of nothing about payments, so if changing the payment filter moves the money figure, the fan-out is back.
Worked solution 25 min
- Create one invoice with three lines of 1000, 1000 and 500 minor units and two payment attempts, then run the original query.
- Confirm it reports 5000 and 6 rather than 2500 and 2.
- Apply
sum(distinct l.amount_minor)and confirm the total becomes 1500, which is worse rather than better. - Write the two-CTE version with a LEFT JOIN and coalesce, and confirm 2500 and 2.
- Add a second invoice with lines and no attempts and confirm it still appears.
Follow-up
- Add a third branch for credit notes applied to the invoice. Does the CTE shape still hold, and when would a single pass with
filter (where ...)be better? - Over 500k invoices this report takes minutes. Which grain would you materialise, and how do you keep it correct when a line is voided?
- The same report is needed per tenant per month. What index makes the line CTE cheap?
How would you improve remote image rendering?
How would you improve remote image rendering?
Approach
- Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.
- State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.
- Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
Follow-up
- What would you drop to keep the system up under load?
- What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?
How would you implement a service that regularly requires a single req…
How would you implement a service that regularly requires a single request to a third-party endpoint?
Approach
- State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.
- Name the failure you are designing for, then the recovery path.
- Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
Follow-up
- How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?
- What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?
How would you design a high-availability solution for a specific featu…
How would you design a high-availability solution for a specific feature?
Approach
- Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
- Name the failure you are designing for, then the recovery path.
- Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.
Follow-up
- How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?
- What would you drop to keep the system up under load?
Describe the architecture of your frontend components and how state ma…
Describe the architecture of your frontend components and how state management is handled.
Approach
- State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.
- Name the failure you are designing for, then the recovery path.
- Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
Follow-up
- What would you drop to keep the system up under load?
- How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?
Design a machine-readable error contract for the gateway
The edge gateway serves roughly 30k requests/second to SDKs and CI pipelines that retry automatically. Today every failure returns 500 with a prose message that clients string-match on. Design the error contract: the response body fields, and the status code for a malformed body, a revoked credential, a scope the credential lacks, a row belonging to another tenant, a reused idempotency key sent with a different body, an exceeded rate limit, and an unreachable dependency. For each, state whether the client may retry and on what schedule. Deliverable: the envelope schema plus the status-to-retry table.
Approach
- Split the envelope by audience: a stable
codestring for programs, amessagedocumented as human-only and free to change, arequest_idthat joins to gateway logs, and adetailsarray for per-field problems. The code list is an enum that only ever grows. - Assign status by who has to change something: 400/422 for the caller's bytes, 401 for a credential that no longer authenticates, 403 for a scope or entitlement, 404 rather than 403 for a row in another tenant because 403 confirms the identifier exists, 409 for an idempotency conflict, 429 for a limit, 503 for a dependency.
- Derive retryability from the method and the idempotency key rather than from the status: a 5xx or a timeout is an unknown outcome, not a failure, so GET/PUT/DELETE may be retried under HTTP semantics and POST only when it carries an idempotency key.
- Put the schedule in the response: Retry-After on 429 and 503 overrides the client's own backoff; otherwise capped exponential backoff with full jitter, sleeping uniformly in [0, min(cap, base * 2^attempt)], bounded by a total attempt budget so retries expire before the caller's deadline.
- Write the negative rules into the published contract: clients must never parse
message, must tolerate unknowncodevalues by falling back to the status class, and a code's meaning is never redefined once shipped.
Worked solution 20 min
- Write the envelope as a JSON schema with four top-level fields and say which are guaranteed present on every error.
- Fill a seven-row table: condition, status, code string, retryable yes/no, and the schedule or the reason retrying cannot help.
- For each non-retryable row, write the one thing the caller must change (bytes, credential, plan, key) so nothing is marked non-retryable without a remedy.
- Add the unknown-outcome row for timeouts and 5xx separately from the other rows, and give it an action other than 'treat as failed'.
- Write two sentences of client guidance: honour Retry-After when present, apply full jitter otherwise, and stop at the attempt budget.
Follow-up
- A customer reports they retried a 500 from POST /v1/runs and ended up with two sandboxes billed. Whose bug is it, and what in your contract permits their reading?
- You need to add a new error code next quarter without a version bump. What did the v1 contract have to say for that to be non-breaking?
Metering partition crash-loops and the sealing watermark freezes
One metering-ingest partition has stopped advancing. Lag grows linearly, the consumer restarts about every 40 seconds, and the same offset appears in every startup log while other partitions stay healthy. Events are committed in batches of a few thousand and the acknowledgement follows the commit. Sealing is six hours away and source_max_ingested_at for that partition's tenants is frozen. Give an ordered checklist, a containment action available within minutes, and the durable fix, saying what each does to exactly-once accounting.
Approach
- Distinguish a poison record from a capacity problem in one measurement: compare the offset and the exception across restarts. An identical pair every time is deterministic failure on one record, whereas a throughput problem still advances the offset between crashes.
- Read the record from a separate consumer group so the bytes can be inspected without perturbing the stuck consumer, then classify the defect: schema violation, a quantity failing the non-negative check, a null workspace, an unmappable SKU enum, or a payload past a size limit. That classification decides whether this is a producer bug or a missing consumer guard.
- Account for batch granularity before acting. With commits of a few thousand, one bad record fails thousands of good ones, so the blast radius is the batch. Halve the batch around the offset to isolate the record, or move to per-record error isolation so the radius becomes the record.
- Contain by diverting that record to a dead-letter store with its raw bytes and offset, then resume. This is safe here precisely because the acknowledgement follows the commit: the good records from the failed batch are re-consumed and absorbed by the uniqueness check on (tenant_id, idempotency_key) rather than counted twice.
- Make the fix durable with per-record error isolation, a bounded poison counter, and an alert on dead-letter rate rather than on lag alone, since lag only reveals this after the sealing margin has already been eaten.
- Check the horizon before replaying anything. The unique index lives on a daily-partitioned table and therefore includes the partition key, so it deduplicates within a day only; a replay landing on a later ingest day needs the separate dedup store or it double-counts into a tenant's bill.
Follow-up
- Move the acknowledgement before the commit and describe exactly what is lost and what is duplicated in each of the two crash windows.
- Sealing is in six hours and the partition will not drain in time. What do you seal on, and what does the invoice have to record so the difference is explainable later?
- A producer replays two weeks of events next month. Which part of your fix stops holding, and what is the dedup horizon you would actually configure?
For a candidate senior enough that the loop turns on design and judgement rather than on whether the coding round gets finished. Five days build one system properly and then stress it; coding gets a single maintenance day, on the assumption that the risk at this level is an unexamined tradeoff rather than a missed algorithm.
Prepare, practise & reflect
One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.
0 / 7 done01Numbers before diagrams
- Build your own reference card of the figures you will re-derive all week: bytes for a realistic record, requests per second implied by a given daily active count, and the storage that a year at a given write rate produces. Derive each one rather than copying it, because the derivation is what survives a follow-up.
- Turn one product statement into capacity requirements. From ten million daily users at four writes and forty reads each, state the peak-to-average factor you are assuming and why, then produce peak write QPS, peak read QPS and a year of storage.
- Write the two numbers whose order of magnitude changes the design, the read-to-write ratio and the working-set size against memory per node, and state the threshold at which each one flips your answer.
Deliverable: A one-page numbers card and one worked capacity estimate with every assumption written down.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗02One system, from requirements to schema
- Spend the first ten minutes producing only functional requirements, non-functional targets with numbers attached, a p99 latency, a durability expectation, a consistency requirement, and an explicit out-of-scope list.
- Define the interface before the boxes: the three or four endpoints, their parameters, what each returns, and which of them are idempotent.
- Write the data model, then write the single access pattern that justifies it, and state what the schema would have to become if the dominant access pattern were the other one.
Deliverable: One design carried to endpoint-and-schema depth, with non-functional targets expressed as numbers and a written out-of-scope list.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗03The consistency you are actually buying
- Write out what a client sees under asynchronous replication when its write commits on the leader and its next read is served by a lagging follower, then write the two fixes, pinning that session's reads to the leader for a bounded window or carrying a version token the replica must reach, and the cost of each.
- Work the quorum arithmetic on paper for N of three with W and R of two, and separate what R + W > N does guarantee, that any read set intersects any write set, from what it does not: on its own it is not linearizability, and a sloppy quorum that accepts writes on nodes outside the preference list breaks even the intersection.
- Take two storage choices with different defaults, a single-leader relational store committing synchronously and a quorum-replicated store that converges eventually, and write the specific product behaviour that would be wrong under each, rather than a general statement about which is stronger.
Deliverable: A page separating what quorum overlap guarantees from what it does not, with one concrete product misbehaviour attached to each gap.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗04Failure is the design
- For one write path, work through the case where the client times out after the server has already committed, then design the idempotency key: who generates it, how long it is retained, and what the duplicate request returns.
- Express the retry policy as parameters rather than as a word: maximum attempts, base delay, backoff factor, jitter, and which error classes are retried at all. Then state why retrying a non-idempotent write without a key is a correctness bug and not merely waste.
- Compute the fan-out effect on tail latency. If a request waits on ten backends and each independently exceeds its p99 one percent of the time, the chance at least one is slow is 1 - 0.99^10, about ten percent. Then write why independence is the optimistic assumption and what correlates them in practice.
- Name the backpressure mechanism for one queue or one dependency in the design, a bounded queue with shedding or a concurrency limit, and write what the caller is told when it engages.
Deliverable: One write path with an idempotency design, a parameterised retry policy, and a written tail-latency calculation with its assumption named.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗05Scaling the hot path
- Choose cache-aside or write-through for one read path and write the staleness window each produces, then name the invalidation event and what the system does when that event is lost.
- Design against the stampede: either coalesce requests so only one recomputes a missing key, or refresh early with jittered expiry, and write why identical TTLs on keys populated in the same moment produce a synchronised expiry and a thundering herd.
- Shard one table by a key you choose, then answer the two questions that break the choice: which queries now require a scatter-gather, and what happens to the distribution when one tenant is a hundred times larger than the median.
- Write the cost of adding a node under plain modulo placement, where nearly every key moves, against consistent hashing, where roughly one key in n+1 moves, and state what virtual nodes are for.
Deliverable: A caching and sharding decision for one path, each with its failure mode and its rebalancing cost written beside it.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗06Keep the coding hand in, at the bar that applies to you
- Solve one medium problem in thirty minutes, then spend twenty more making it production-shaped: named invariants, validation at the boundary, and errors that distinguish a caller mistake from an internal fault.
- Write the tests you would require of a colleague's version of that function: one for empty input, one for the boundary, and one for the case the implementation is most likely to get wrong.
- Read a piece of your own code from six months ago and write the change you would ask for, phrased as you would actually phrase it in review.
Deliverable: One problem hardened to review standard, with its test list and one written review comment.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗07Defend it while being interrupted
- Run a forty-five-minute design mock with an interviewer briefed to change a requirement halfway, a tenfold traffic increase or a new strict consistency requirement, and to push on one number you estimated.
- Rehearse the two sentences a senior loop is listening for: naming the tradeoff you are choosing against and why, and saying what you would measure to learn that the choice was wrong.
- Prepare the design you regret: a real decision, the constraint that produced it, what it cost, and what you changed afterwards.
Deliverable: Mock notes recording how the design changed under the new requirement, plus a written account of one regretted decision.
Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.
When the requirements were thin, the interesting part is how you fenced the problem off: the assumption you wrote down, who you got to confirm it, the narrow version you shipped first so the rest stayed cheap to change. Guessing and being right is luck. Guessing in writing, where someone could correct you, is method.
Tell me about a mistake you have made and how you got over it.
Tell me about a mistake you have made and how you got over it.
Approach
- Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
- Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
Follow-up
- What did you decide not to do, and why?
- What would you do differently if you ran that again?
What has been one of the most challenging things you have implemented …
What has been one of the most challenging things you have implemented in the past year?
Approach
- Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
- State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
- Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Follow-up
- How did you know your change caused the improvement?
- What did you decide not to do, and why?
Argue against failing open when the control plane is unreachable
The gateway caches credential-to-context decisions with a sixty-second TTL. A design proposal says that when control-plane reads fail, pods should keep serving from expired entries indefinitely so a control-plane outage never becomes a product outage. You believe that converts every revocation into an unbounded one. Describe a design you argued against while it was still a live proposal: what you measured or modelled to make the case, what you conceded, who decided, and what happened afterwards. Say what would have changed your mind before the decision, not after it.
Approach
- Reframe it from a values argument into a bounded-staleness argument. Both sides already accept the cache; the disagreement is only about the ceiling on how long a revoked credential keeps authorising. Put a number on the table — serve stale for up to fifteen minutes, then fail closed — and make the other side argue against a number rather than against a principle.
- Bring arithmetic rather than adjectives: the rate of revocations with revoked_reason in ('suspected_leak','auth_version_bump'), the observed distribution of control-plane unavailability, and the product of the two, which is expected requests served by revoked credentials per outage-hour. At 30k requests/second the unbounded version is not a subtle exposure and the number says so.
- Concede the strong half of the opposing case first, because that is what buys you the room: failing closed turns one service's outage into a total outage across three regions, and a control plane doing tens of writes per second is not engineered to the gateway's availability target. A proposal you have not steelmanned reads as reflex.
- Propose the asymmetry that usually resolves this: stale entitlements cost bounded money (a quota fifteen minutes out of date over-serves by a computable amount), while a stale revocation costs unbounded access. Split the cached decision by what it authorises, give the two halves different staleness ceilings, and let the entitlement half fail open while the revocation half fails closed.
- State the propagation dependency plainly, since it is the part that is missed: validity is also derived from the principal's auth_version, so password reset and sign-out-everywhere flow through this same cache. A design that bounds staleness for explicit revocation and not for auth_version bumps has only fixed half of it.
- Say who decided, and what you did afterwards in either outcome: write the decision down with its number and a review date, and instrument the exposure you were worried about so the next round of the argument is settled by data instead of by seniority.
Follow-up
- Publish-subscribe invalidation is lossy under a partition, and a TTL is the only hard bound. What TTL do you pick, and what does it cost you at 30k requests/second?
- The key was revoked because it was found in a public repository. Does your answer change, and where does that urgency live in the design?
- You lost the argument and six weeks later the failure you predicted happens. What do you say in the review, and what do you not say?
- 01
Tell me about a mistake you have made and how you got over it.
- 02
What has been one of the most challenging things you have implemented in the past year?
- 03
The gateway caches credential-to-context decisions with a sixty-second TTL. A design proposal says that when control-plane reads fail, pods should keep serving from expired entries indefinitely so a control-plane outage never becomes a product outage. You believe that converts every revocation into an unbounded one. Describe a design you argued against while it was still a live proposal: what you measured or modelled to make the case, what you conceded, who decided, and what happened afterwards. Say what would have changed your mind before the decision, not after it.
Is this an official Kraken Technology Group interview guide?
No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Software Engineer role at Kraken Technology Group. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process Kraken Technology Group has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.
PracHub interview research ↗How much time should I spend on the take-home assignment?
While the prompt may suggest a certain timeframe, focus on quality over speed. Aim for production-level code, including tests and documentation. Quality and security are more important than rushing to completion.
PracHub interview research ↗Is knowledge of crypto/blockchain required?
While not always mandatory, having a basic understanding of how these systems work will significantly help you during technical and behavioral interviews.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the company culture like?
Kraken Technology Group values independence, security-consciousness, and technical excellence. It is a remote-first culture that expects engineers to be self-starters who can manage their time and work effectively with global teams.
PracHub interview research ↗What is the typical timeline for the process?
The process can take anywhere from three weeks to over a month, depending on team availability and your own pace.
PracHub interview research ↗Sources & methodology 3 sources ↗
No official company page is cited. Rounds and questions come from candidate reports and PracHub editorial material; each source shows the date it was read.
- 01PracHub interview research ↗
PracHub editorial research into this company and role, maintained with this guide. Candidate-reported, not an employer publication.
PracHub page · Accessed 2026-09-22 - 02PracHub Software Engineer practice ↗
Cross-company practice questions for this role.
PracHub page · Accessed 2026-09-22 - 03PracHub interview preparation framework ↗
The framework the preparation plan follows.
PracHub page · Accessed 2026-09-22
Explore related engineering environments and compare the preparation focus.
Vercel Software Engineer Interview Guide
Debugging practice for Vercel software engineer prep built on a reproduction you trust, narrowing to the smallest failing input, and changing one variable per run so the result stays attributable.
Mistral AI Software Engineer Interview Guide
Testing exercises for Mistral AI software engineer prep: choosing boundary cases over repetition, isolating tests from shared clock and ordering, and treating an intermittent failure as a defect rather than noise.
Zscaler Software Engineer Interview Guide
Concurrency exercises for Zscaler candidates: check-then-act races, deadlock from inconsistent lock ordering, and why two individually atomic operations do not compose into an atomic update.
Verkada Software Engineer Interview Guide
Prepare for the software engineer interview at Verkada with original coding, system design and debugging exercises, each paired with a worked solution and the reasoning behind it.