It was fairly straightforward, I first met with the co-founder, he was very friendly and that gave me a good impression of the company. I was given an exercise to build an API, there was no timeframe on when to submit. I made sure to put so much effort into my solution, built a mini-web framework because you aren't allowed to use an external web-framework. In the assignment, it was written you'd get bonus points for being able to talk about your solution. After I submitted it and they got back to me, I had an interview with two other engineers. Which they "barely talked about my solution", but asked about other things which people usually have different opinions about. I was also asked about a puzzle during the call which I failed to answer correctly, but it doesn't make sense to rate people based on puzzle questions. You get some, you fail some. It just hurts because if they had mentioned not to "overengineer" the solution I wouldn't have invested my time into the assignment. But it was written to "overengineer" the solution. They should review their assessment process. If you want to employ based on technical questions only then stick to that, don't let people invest so much time, and then you judge based on one or two failed questions during the technical interview phase. Asides from that, they all sounded nice! and seems like a great place to work.