← Anthropic Interview Insights
This one tripped me up more than I expected.
First, explain how the previous fix changed the tokenizer's behavior, likely by altering control flow or state, which exposed a latent defect. Then, construct a minimal input that triggers the new failure, trace through the tokenization steps to pinpoint the root cause, and describe the expected correct output. Finally, propose a robust fix and discuss how to prevent similar issues.
Pro tip: Demonstrate that you understand the tokenizer's contract and invariants; show that you can reason about edge cases and state transitions, not just patch symptoms. Mention that you would add regression tests for both the original and new bugs.
Review the code change that fixed the first bug. Determine what behavior was altered and how it might affect other parts of the tokenizer.
Run the tokenizer with a variety of inputs, focusing on edge cases related to the previous fix. Find a minimal input that produces incorrect output.
Step through the tokenizer's logic for the failing input. Identify the exact condition or state that leads to the defect, and explain how the previous fix exposed it.
State what the tokenizer should output for the failing input, referencing the tokenizer's specification or expected invariants.
Suggest a code change that addresses the root cause without breaking existing behavior. Recommend tests to cover this and similar cases.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.