---
id: coding-signals
title: Coding interview signals
keywords: [algorithm, coding, interview, signals, behavior]
---
< head >
< title > Signals interviewers look out for during coding interviews | Tech Interview Handbook< / title >
< meta property = "og:title" content = "Signals interviewers look out for during coding interviews | Tech Interview Handbook" / >
< / head >
The point of interviews is for interviewers to extract signals from certain candidate behaviors. In coding interviews, the signals can be broadly classified into the following categories: Problem Solving, Technical Competency, Testing, and Communication.
When interviewers take down interview feedback, these are likely what is on their feedback sheet.
Refer to the [Meta/Facebook's Onsite Interview Guide ](https://www.metacareers.com/swe-prep-onsite/ ) for more information.
## Communication
### Clarify problem
- 👍 Appropriately asked good, clarifying questions about the problem
- 👎 Failed to confirm understanding/ask appropriate questions
### Communicating approach
- 👍 Able to explain overall approach, technical terms, and acronyms (where applicable)
- 👎 Failed to effectively explain overall approach, technical terms, and acronyms (where applicable)
### Explains while coding
- 👍 Explains what the code is doing while coding, especially for parts that aren't obvious
- 👎 Keeps silent during coding, or just reading out the code without much explanation
## Problem solving
### Understanding the problem
- 👍 Understood the key aspects of the problem quickly
- 👎 Had difficulty in understanding the key aspects of the problem
### Solution/approach
- 👍 Approached the problem in a systematic and logical manner
- 👎 Did not demonstrate a logical thought process for approaching the problem
### Trade-offs analysis
- 👍 Came up with multiple solutions and explained the trade-offs of each clearly and correctly
- 👎 Failed to describe trade-offs of different solutions
### Improving the solution
- 👍 Suggested a more efficient solution when prompted, or proactively coming up with a better solution
- 👎 Had difficulty in coming up with a more efficient solution even after being prompted
### Complexity analysis
- 👍 Able to determine the algorithmic time and space complexity
- 👎 Was not able to determine the algorithmic time and space complexity (explain why TC came up with such an answer)
### Hinting
- 👍 Did not require any major hints
- 👎 Needed plenty of hints
## Technical competency
### Speed
- 👍 Quickly implemented a working solution
- 👎 Was not able to complete the solution
### Correctness/Accuracy
- 👍 Implemented the solution correctly (e.g., working solution, minimal bugs)
- 👎 Unable to correctly implement a solution (e.g., non-working solution, incorrect logic, and/or serious bugs)
### Mastery of chosen programming language
- 👍 Demonstrated mastery of the chosen programming language
- 👎 Does not seem to be familiar with the chosen programming language
### Implementation
- 👍 Implementation was clean and straightforward
- 👎 Implementation was unnecessarily complex and/or messy
### Coding style
- 👍 Coding style was neat (proper indentation, spacing, and no bad practices)
- 👎 Coding style was messy (inconsistent indentation, weird spacings, etc.)
## Testing
### Common cases
- 👍 Tested their code against various typical cases
- 👎 Failed to test the code against typical cases
### Corner cases
- 👍 Found and handled corner/edge cases
- 👎 Failed to consider corner/edge cases
### Self-correction
- 👍 Identified and corrected bugs in the code (where applicable)
- 👎 Not able to discover and fix bugs even after being hinted/prompted
