Skeps · Software Engineer
Updated · 2026-09-24

Skeps Software Engineer
Interview Questions & Guide 2026

THE 60-SECOND BRIEF

As a Software Engineer at Skeps, you are at the heart of a rapidly evolving fintech ecosystem. Skeps is redefining how consumers and merchants interact through its innovative point-of-sale financing platform, and your work directly influences the reliability, scalability, and performance of these financial transactions. You will be building robust backend systems or fluid frontend interfaces that serve a high volume of users, requiring a blend of technical precision and creative problem-solving.

Allocate preparation against your weakest link rather than your favourite topic. A strong algorithm habit usually comes with weak out-loud explanation of tradeoffs, and years of shipping usually come with rusty from-scratch implementation under a clock.

Skeps candidates report 3 rounds · ≈ 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Bound every outbound call with a timeoutMake every write idempotent under retryPaginate large result sets with keyset cursors

34 min read

Browse Software Engineer questions

See the practice prompts

13Practice promptsAcross five skill areas
3With worked solutionsIncluded in the practice prompts

As a Software Engineer at Skeps, you are at the heart of a rapidly evolving fintech ecosystem. Skeps is redefining how consumers and merchants interact through its innovative point-of-sale financing platform, and your work directly influences the reliability, scalability, and performance of these financial transactions. You will be building robust backend systems or fluid frontend interfaces that serve a high volume of users, requiring a blend of technical precision and creative problem-solving.

This role is critical to the company's mission of streamlining complex financial workflows. Whether you are optimizing API performance, implementing secure payment gateways, or enhancing UI responsiveness, your contributions move the needle on real-world business outcomes. You will work within a collaborative, fast-paced environment where your ability to translate ambiguous requirements into clean, maintainable code is highly valued.

Skeps prioritizes engineers who can demonstrate not just how code works, but why a specific architectural decision was made to support the product's growth.

01

Initial Screening

reported

The 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
PracHub interview research ↗
02

Technical Assessments

reported

The same problem is scored by two different mechanisms depending on the format, and preparing for one does not cover the other. With a person watching, partial progress is visible and a hint is a correction you can absorb; silence is the expensive failure, because nobody can read a half-written function. With an automated grader there is no partial credit for what you were about to do, nobody to ask, and the worked examples in the prompt are the entire specification. Read them as a contract, down to whether an empty result should be an empty list or no output at all.

What to demonstrate

  • In a live session, whether your commentary tracks what your hands are doing, and whether a hint redirects you or gets defended against
  • In an automated one, whether you cover the cases the examples do not show, since the hidden cases are where the score moves
  • Whether you manage the clock on purpose: abandoning an approach that is not converging while there is still time to write something simpler that finishes

How to prepare

  • Have someone hand you a problem and feed you one deliberately wrong hint. Practise testing it against a concrete case instead of accepting or rejecting it on authority.
  • Do one timed run a week in a plain browser editor with autocomplete, linting and your own snippets switched off, which is closer to what these environments give you
  • For the automated format, write the harness before the solution: a main that feeds the worked examples plus an empty and a single-element case and prints expected against actual, so a wrong submission is caught by you first
PracHub interview research ↗
03

Culture-Fit Discussions

reported

Your first answer is not really what is scored. It buys the follow-up questions, and those decide the round. An interviewer with fifteen minutes takes one thread and pushes on it four or five times, so a story you can only tell at a single level of detail collapses under the third why. That is an argument for fewer stories known deeply rather than one prepared per prompt. Four or five pieces of work you can still explain down to the code you changed and the argument you had about it will cover nearly anything asked in this round.

What to demonstrate

  • Whether a story holds as the questioning moves from what you did to why that instead of the alternative, and then to what you would change knowing what you know now
  • Whether you can re-cut a project to answer the question actually asked rather than delivering a rehearsed block that answers an adjacent one
  • Whether your level of detail is chosen rather than habitual: going down to the schema when the question is about the data model, staying out of it when the question is about the person who disagreed with you

How to prepare

  • Pick four projects and write the chain out four levels deep for each: what you did, why that, why not the alternative, and what would have to be true for the alternative to have won. Where you cannot reach the fourth level, you have a placeholder rather than a story
  • Have someone ask why three times in a row on a single thread with nothing else added, and mark the point where you start repeating a sentence you already said. That point is where the interviewer stops learning anything
  • Build a one-page index instead of an answer bank: the common prompts in this round (disagreement, a failure that was yours, thin requirements, a deadline you missed, work you inherited) mapped to which of your four projects you would use for each, so the choosing is done now rather than while an interviewer waits
PracHub interview research ↗

PracHub editorial advice for the preparation topics above.

01

Shipping a migration and the code that depends on it as a single change

During any rolling deploy, and for as long as a rollback remains possible, old and new code execute against the same schema at the same time. A migration that drops or renames a column breaks every instance that has not restarted yet, and code that requires a column the migration has not applied breaks every instance that restarted early. The discipline is expand then contract: add the new column nullable, write both shapes, backfill in batches, move reads across once the backfill is verified, and only then stop writing the old shape and drop it - four deploys, usually spread over days. It feels disproportionate until the first rollback, at which point it is the only reason the previous version still runs.

02

Assuming an isolation level prevents the anomaly you actually have

Isolation levels are named by the SQL standard but implemented differently, so any claim about one is only true of a named engine. PostgreSQL defaults to READ COMMITTED, where every statement takes a fresh snapshot, so two statements inside one transaction can legitimately disagree about the same row. Its REPEATABLE READ is snapshot isolation: it removes non-repeatable and phantom reads but permits write skew, where two transactions each read a set, each conclude their own write is safe, both commit, and the combined result violates a constraint that no single row expresses. Only SERIALIZABLE closes that, and it closes it by aborting a transaction with a serialization failure (SQLSTATE 40001), which means the guarantee is theoretical unless the application has a retry loop. InnoDB's REPEATABLE READ is a different mechanism again - plain SELECTs read a consistent snapshot while locking reads and writes see the latest committed row - so a read-modify-write inside one transaction can act on a value that the transaction's own earlier SELECT never returned.

03

Tests that assert on the implementation rather than the behaviour

Assert on what a caller can observe, not on the number of internal calls or the shape of a private field. A test that breaks on every refactor but still passes when the answer is wrong costs more than it protects.

04

Arguing past a hint

When the interviewer asks what happens for a particular input or floats a different data structure, stop and take it seriously; it is almost always a correction rather than idle curiosity. Talking over it converts a recoverable wrong turn into a data point about how you handle review.

Choose a category, try a prompt, then open its approach, worked solution or follow-up when you need it.

10 technical prompts3 include a worked solution

Group all anagrams together present in an array.

medium
data structures and algorithms

Group all anagrams together present in an array.

Approach
  1. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
  2. Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
  3. Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
Follow-up
  • What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
  • Which test case would catch an off-by-one here?

Find prime numbers in n digits using the language of your choice.

medium
data structures and algorithms

Find prime numbers in n digits using the language of your choice.

Approach
  1. Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
  2. State the target complexity and say which constraint rules the naive version out.
  3. Restate the input: its shape, its size, and what is guaranteed about it.
Follow-up
  • What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?
  • How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?

Write a deepCheck function to compare any data type and its value for …

medium
data structures and algorithms

Write a deepCheck function to compare any data type and its value for equality.

Approach
  1. Choose the data structure from the access pattern, not from familiarity.
  2. Walk one small example through your approach before writing the whole thing.
  3. Name the brute-force solution and its complexity before improving on it.
Follow-up
  • How does this change if the input no longer fits in memory?
  • What is the worst case, and how likely is it on real data?

Archive a resource graph without breaking live references or recursing

mediumWorked solution
graph traversaltopological ordertenant isolation

Resources reference other resources within a tenant; for the largest tenant the reference table holds up to 2,000,000 nodes and 8,000,000 edges. Archiving a resource must archive everything reachable from it that nothing outside the set still references, refuse when a live external referrer exists, and terminate when references form cycles, which they legitimately do. Produce the archive order and the refusal list, targeting O(V+E). Say what stops the traversal crossing a tenant boundary, and why recursion is the wrong control structure at this size.

Approach
  1. Load the subgraph with the tenant predicate on both endpoints of the edge, not only on the side you started from. Scoping the left table alone is the classic cross-tenant leak: one mis-entered edge then pulls another tenant's resources into the traversal and, worse, into the archive.
  2. Traverse iteratively with an explicit stack. A 2,000,000-node graph can hold a chain deep enough to exhaust a native stack in the low tens of thousands of frames, and that failure is a process crash rather than an error you can return.
  3. Treat cycles as data rather than corruption: compute strongly connected components with Tarjan in O(V+E) using its own explicit stack, then condense. The condensation is a DAG, so a topological order over it gives the archive order, and every member of a component archives in one transaction because no order within a cycle is valid.
  4. Decide refusals with reverse edges. A candidate is archivable only if every in-edge originates inside the candidate set, so build the transpose or count in-degrees restricted to the visited set, and emit each blocked resource with the id of the external referrer, which is the only part of the answer an operator can act on.
  5. Store the graph as CSR rather than a map of lists: an offsets array of V+1 8-byte entries plus E 8-byte targets is about 80 MB at this size, where boxed adjacency lists cost several times that and lose cache locality on every hop.
  6. Run Kahn over the condensation for the order in O(V+E). If the emitted count is short of the component count the condensation step itself is wrong, since a condensation cannot contain a cycle, which makes the check free.
Worked solution 30 min
  1. Write the edge-loading query with the tenant predicate on both endpoints and state what it does with a cross-tenant edge.
  2. Implement iterative Tarjan with an explicit stack and confirm on a three-node cycle that it emits one component of size three.
  3. Build the transpose restricted to the visited set and mark every node with an in-edge from outside it as refused, carrying the referrer id.
  4. Run Kahn over the condensation and verify the emitted order against the referrer-before-referenced rule.
  5. Size the CSR arrays for 2,000,000 nodes and 8,000,000 edges and compare against a boxed adjacency map.
EXPECTED RESULTAn iterative O(V+E) traversal over a tenant-scoped CSR subgraph, SCC condensation so cycles archive atomically as one component, a transpose-based refusal list naming the external referrer for each blocked resource, and a Kahn topological order over the condensation, with recursion replaced by an explicit stack because of graph depth rather than style.
Follow-up
  • The graph is read in one query and the archive writes a minute later. What can change in between, and how do you make the write safe?
  • The candidate set is 400,000 resources. Is that one transaction, and if not, what does a half-finished archive look like to a reader?
  • An edge points at a resource in another tenant. Is that a refusal, an error, or an alert?

Four days sample coding, design, fundamentals and the practical rounds at deliberately shallow depth, which is enough to surface the topics you did not know were in scope. That map, rather than a guess made on day one, decides where the last three days go.

Small steps. Visible outcomes.0 / 7 completed
ONE WEEK · YOUR PACE

Prepare, practise & reflect

One practical outcome each day. Spend longer where you need it.

0 / 7 done
01Coding, one pass at shallow depth
  • Solve one problem from each of six families, an array with two pointers, hash counting, binary search, a tree traversal, a graph traversal and one dynamic program, under a hard twenty-minute cap with no extensions, marking each finished, late, or stalled.
  • For every stall, write the exact move you could not make rather than the subject, so the note reads could not turn the recurrence into a loop rather than bad at dynamic programming.
  • Fix nothing today. The value of the pass is the unfixed record.

Deliverable: Six timed attempts marked finished, late or stalled, each stall carrying a named blocking move.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗
02Design, one pass at shallow depth
  • Spend twenty minutes each on three different shapes, a read-heavy feed, a write-heavy ingest path, and something needing a transaction across two entities, stopping each at requirements, interface and data model.
  • After each, write the first question you could not answer, which is usually a number you could not estimate or a failure mode you had no vocabulary for.
  • Mark which of the three you would be most relieved not to be asked, and treat that as data rather than as a preference.

Deliverable: Three shallow designs, each with the first unanswerable question written at the bottom.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
03Fundamentals and the practical rounds
  • Answer eight short questions in writing at four minutes each, covering the material that fills the gaps between the big rounds: what happens between a URL and a rendered page, what an index costs on write, when a process is preferable to a thread, and what conditions a deadlock requires.
  • Do one thirty-minute practical task of the kind a take-home compresses: read an unfamiliar two-hundred-line file and write what it does, what you would change, and the one thing you remain unsure of.
  • Score every answer fluent, correct but slow, or absent, and keep the absent ones visible.

Deliverable: Eight scored short answers and one written reading of unfamiliar code.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
04The rounds that are about you, and the map
  • Deliver three behavioural answers aloud against a timer, a conflict, a failure you owned, and a decision made without enough information, marking any that ran past three minutes or contained no number.
  • Assemble the map: every marked item from days one to three on a single page, sorted by how likely it is to appear in your loop rather than by how uncomfortable it felt.
  • Choose exactly two areas for the remaining three days and write down what you are deliberately abandoning.

Deliverable: A one-page scored map of the whole surface area with two areas chosen and the rest explicitly abandoned.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗
05First chosen area, to the depth you skipped
  • Work the higher-ranked area in four focused blocks, choosing items one level above where you stalled rather than repeating what already works.
  • After each block write the rule you extracted in one sentence with its precondition attached, since a rule carrying no precondition is exactly what fails under a variation.
  • Re-attempt the day-one or day-two item that exposed this area and compare against the original timing.

Deliverable: Four worked blocks, a timed re-attempt against the original, and three one-sentence rules with preconditions.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
06Second chosen area, where the gap is coverage rather than speed
  • Treat the second area differently from the first. Day five drilled something you could already half-do; this one is usually a topic you had simply never met, so build one worked reference example end to end and keep it, rather than attempting six problems badly.
  • Write down the vocabulary you were missing on day two or three, five terms at most, each with the one sentence that makes it usable in an answer rather than the textbook definition.
  • Redo the shallow attempt that exposed this area and note whether you now fail later in the problem, because moving the failure point is the realistic gain from a single day and is worth more than a score that did not change.

Deliverable: One worked reference example for the newly covered area, a five-term vocabulary list, and a note on where the failure point moved.

Practice prompt ↗Practice prompt ↗
07Reassemble the loop
  • Sit two rounds back to back with no gap, ordering them so the area you chose second comes last, because the map was built from rested, isolated attempts and the loop will reach your weaker area when you are already spent.
  • Write where the second round suffered from the first, which is normally the point at which structure collapses into narration.
  • Reduce the week to one page holding only the rules you can state without reading them.

Deliverable: Mock notes on cross-round carryover plus a one-page card of rules you can recite from memory.

Practice prompt ↗Worked solution ↗

Expand any day for tasks and deliverables. Your progress is saved on this device.

Keep one story where the bad call was yours rather than a dependency's or a manager's. Name the check that would have caught it, whether you added that check afterwards, and whether it has fired since. Answers that route blame outward end the conversation early; answers that end in a guardrail someone still relies on tend to open it up.

Why are you looking for a change in your current role?

medium
behavioural and engineering judgement

Why are you looking for a change in your current role?

Approach
  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
  3. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Follow-up
  • What did you decide not to do, and why?
  • How did you know your change caused the improvement?

Describe yourself and your professional background.

medium
behavioural and engineering judgement

Describe yourself and your professional background.

Approach
  1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
  2. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
  3. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Follow-up
  • What did you decide not to do, and why?
  • What would you do differently if you ran that again?

Turn a code review disagreement into a decision

easy
code reviewoptimistic concurrencycommunication

A colleague's change updates a row with UPDATE resource SET version = version + 1 WHERE resource_id = $1 AND version = $2 and treats an affected-row count of zero as a successful no-op. You read that as a silently lost update; they think returning 200 is friendlier to clients than returning a conflict. Describe how you have handled a review disagreement of this shape: what goes in the comment, when you leave the thread, and who decides. Then write the comment you would leave here, in under 80 words.

Approach
  1. Sort the disagreement before writing anything. A silently discarded write is a correctness claim about data; the choice between 409 and 412 is taste. Only the first justifies blocking a merge, and saying which one you are doing is most of the value of the comment.
  2. Make the claim reproducible in the comment itself with an interleaving rather than a principle: A reads version 7, B reads version 7, B commits version 8, A's predicate matches zero rows, A is told it succeeded and A's edit is gone.
  3. Offer the alternative with its cost attached: return 409 carrying the current version and the revision that won, so the client can re-read and re-apply. Note that automatic retry is not the fix, because a retry re-reads the winner's state and reapplies an intent formed against data that no longer exists.
  4. Apply an escalation rule you can state: two round trips on the thread, then a call, and the service's owner decides rather than the reviewer. A reviewer who cannot be overruled is a bottleneck with extra steps.
  5. Close in writing wherever the decision lands, so the next reader finds the reasoning in the code or the ticket instead of in a collapsed review thread.
Follow-up
  • Where would you put the test that fails if someone reintroduces the swallowed zero rowcount?
  • The author says clients cannot handle a 409. How do you check whether that is true?
  • How do you handle the same review comment when the author is more senior than you and in a hurry?
  • 01

    Why are you looking for a change in your current role?

  • 02

    Describe yourself and your professional background.

  • 03

    A colleague's change updates a row with UPDATE resource SET version = version + 1 WHERE resource_id = $1 AND version = $2 and treats an affected-row count of zero as a successful no-op. You read that as a silently lost update; they think returning 200 is friendlier to clients than returning a conflict. Describe how you have handled a review disagreement of this shape: what goes in the comment, when you leave the thread, and who decides. Then write the comment you would leave here, in under 80 words.

PracHub interview preparation framework ↗
Is this an official Skeps interview guide?

No. It is PracHub's own research and practice material for the Software Engineer role at Skeps. Rounds and questions reflect what candidates have reported, not a process Skeps has published, and they change over time. Confirm the current format and scope with your recruiter.

PracHub interview research ↗
How difficult are the technical interviews?

The difficulty is average, focusing more on your understanding of core concepts and problem-solving logic than on obscure trivia.

PracHub interview research ↗
How long does the process take?

The process is generally quick, with results often communicated within a week of your final round.

PracHub interview research ↗
What is the company culture like?

Skeps is a fast-paced, collaborative environment where engineers are expected to take initiative and communicate openly.

PracHub interview research ↗
How can I stand out?

Successful candidates demonstrate a clear, logical approach to coding and a genuine interest in the business problems Skeps is solving.

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.