Welp, here is another negative review. As mentioned in other reviews, they push you to have a PR review assignment without any calls before that. Considering the reviews on Glassdoor, I insisted on having a call with the recruiter first and asking directly about them. The recruiter was nice and convinced me that the company was legit, so I decided to give it a try. I was presented with a PR review assignment. I've carefully read the company's docs and performed the review. In total, I've spent about an hour and a half on it. I felt that I've done a great job. I've blocked the PR as it doesn't match the functional requirements. I've also blocked it because it unexpectedly broke the API. Plus, I've left a comment, telling the worker to fix the REST API design, as they have used the wrong REST method for a new endpoint. I did not block the PR with minor things, so it wasn't a case for perfectionism. On the next working day, I received an answer that I hadn't passed, because `in 2 key areas we did not find that the feedback was strongly aligned with the high bar the team has set: 1. Breaking API change; 2. Issues with the REST API design.` I’m puzzled as to why these reasons are listed. In the review, I blocked the pull request because of a breaking API change and stated it clearly. What is a higher bar than blocking the pull request? Also, I’ve noticed and commented in the PR about the issue with the rest API design and requested a change about it. The reasons for the decline don’t make sense to me, as I don’t understand what should’ve been done differently. This means that my outcome is exactly the same as in other reviews. Considering other reviews, I conclude that this company is either: a) conducting fake interviews so that it can have a metric for "we've done X interviews last quarter". Maybe they do it for government rules, maybe to show that they try hiring someone on the market, before hiring someone they know. Option b) is that the company's hiring process is completely broken and they don't fix it. Either way, my recommendation is to decline to accept an interview from this company. I would never apply anymore to a company with such overwhelmingly poor reviews on Glassdoor.

Negative experience primarily due to the hiring process. Candidates are required to invest significant time completing an exercise before any initial conversation, yet the level of review effort did not appear proportional. This created a sense of imbalance in time investment. The process began directly with a take-home assignment (a TDD review in this case), without an introductory or alignment discussion. After submission, a follow-up interview was scheduled. A few observations that may help future candidates: First, it became evident during the interview that the written submission had not been fully reviewed. This undermines the purpose of a detailed exercise and suggests that candidates should expect to present their work live regardless of the effort put into the written review. Second, expectations for the assignment were not clearly aligned. Candidates may approach the task from an engineering management perspective—focusing on evaluating reasoning, providing structured feedback, and suggesting improvements without prescribing a single solution. However, the interview emphasized arriving at a specific solution, shifting the discussion away from review quality and toward real-time problem solving. The rejection feedback was generic but quick, with no clear indication of which areas did not meet expectations. During the interview, there were signs of misalignment in expectations and approach, which made the outcome less surprising. As the discussion progressed, the conversation became increasingly focused on a specific solution path, highlighting a lack of alignment on how the exercise was being evaluated. This resulted in reduced engagement toward the later part of the discussion, as it no longer reflected the initially understood scope of the role. Overall, candidates may benefit from: - Clarifying how the assignment will be evaluated (solution-focused vs. review-focused). - Preparing to present a concrete solution, even if the prompt appears open-ended.