← Series B+ Startup Interview Insights
The no-API constraint on the ticket system is what threw me.
Start by clarifying requirements and constraints, then propose a high-level architecture that separates the browser automation layer from the API integration and response generation. Discuss trade-offs between reliability, speed, and cost, and outline how components communicate and handle failures.
Pro tip: Emphasize idempotency and observability: design the browser automation to be resilient to UI changes and ensure every action is logged and traceable. This shows you think about production readiness, not just functionality.
Ask questions to understand ticket volume, latency requirements, user data sensitivity, and whether browser automation is temporary. This ensures the design meets actual needs.
Sketch components: a browser automation service (e.g., using Puppeteer/Playwright) to fetch tickets, an API client for user data, a response generator (possibly LLM-based), and an orchestrator. Define data flow and interfaces.
For each component, discuss implementation choices: headless browser management, session handling, API rate limiting, caching, and prompt engineering for chat responses. Address error handling and retries.
Analyze trade-offs: browser automation vs. reverse-engineering APIs, synchronous vs. asynchronous processing, and cost of LLM calls. Discuss scaling horizontally and handling UI changes.
Propose logging, metrics, and alerting for browser failures and API errors. Suggest fallback mechanisms and manual override options.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.