Amazon·Software Engineer·Onsite - Behavioral / Leadership·Intermediate

Intermediate

Jun 2026

Summary

Amazon SWE interview with a scenario-based judgment question about code review and testing practices. Pretty much one question the whole time, but it had a lot of moving parts.

Questions Asked (1)

A teammate wants fast approval on in-game purchase code that he skipped testing on. You're given several possible responses: point him to a QA colleague for edge cases, send him historical error reports, drop your own work and help him run full tests yourself, wait for a senior engineer to review it first, or just approve it to hit the deadline. Rank these from most to least effective.

Technical Trade-offsCross-functional AlignmentStakeholder Management

Author's notes

I ranked 'approve to hit deadline' last without hesitation, that felt obvious.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by acknowledging the tension between speed and quality, then evaluate each option against Amazon's Leadership Principles (Customer Obsession, Ownership, Insist on the Highest Standards). Rank the options by how well they balance risk mitigation, team collaboration, and delivery, and explain your reasoning with a clear trade-off analysis.

Pro tip: Frame your ranking around long-term ownership: the best answer prevents future incidents by improving the process, not just fixing the immediate issue. Mention that skipping tests on purchase code risks customer trust and revenue, which are non-negotiable at Amazon.

1. Clarify the stakes

Identify why in-game purchase code is high-risk: it directly impacts revenue, customer trust, and may have compliance implications. This justifies why testing cannot be skipped.

2. Evaluate options against principles

Assess each option using Amazon Leadership Principles: Customer Obsession, Ownership, Insist on the Highest Standards, and Deliver Results. Consider short-term vs. long-term impact.

3. Rank with rationale

Order the options from most to least effective, explaining why each is better or worse. Prioritize options that mitigate risk while enabling the teammate to meet the deadline safely.

4. Propose a combined action

Suggest a practical solution that blends the top options: e.g., point to QA for edge cases, share historical error reports, and offer to help run critical tests if needed, while escalating if the teammate insists on skipping tests.

5. Highlight process improvement

Emphasize the need to prevent recurrence by advocating for automated testing or a checklist for high-risk code, showing ownership beyond the immediate issue.

Key Points to Mention

Customer Obsession: purchase bugs directly harm customers and revenue.
Ownership: taking responsibility for quality even if it's not your code.
Insist on the Highest Standards: testing is non-negotiable for critical paths.
Deliver Results: find a way to meet the deadline without compromising quality.
Cross-functional collaboration: leverage QA and historical data to speed up testing.
Escalation: involve a senior engineer if the teammate refuses to test, to protect the team and customer.

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.