R Systems

They had first round for frontend code writing ability. And some react questions. Some questions on how to make ui better and reliable. Also he asked me about .claude and .agents file.

Over all interview process was good They asked one DSA question. The interview also included questions on OOP concepts and DSA fundamentals. Additionally, they discussed my projects based on my resume.

The interview was easy and straightforward. Questions focused on basic computer science concepts and fundamental knowledge and some DS-Algo topics. Overall, the interview experience was smooth, comfortable, well-structured, and provided a positive impression.

Disappointing Candidate Experience Due to Poor Communication I recently went through the interview process for an AI/QA-related role and unfortunately had a very disappointing candidate experience despite successfully clearing multiple rounds. I cleared the initial technical rounds and was then scheduled for a client discussion. Prior to the client round, I was asked to remove internship experience from my LinkedIn profile because the client would be reviewing my profile, which I found unusual. During the process, I was repeatedly asked whether I could leave my current employer immediately or abscond, which made me uncomfortable. Candidates should not be pressured into making such decisions before an offer is finalized. After completing the client round, I was informed that the client wanted to meet me in person for a "discussion." I specifically confirmed multiple times with HR whether this would be another interview or simply a discussion, and I was told it would only be a small discussion. The scheduling itself was confusing. Initially, I was told to report at 11 AM. The next morning, the timing was changed to 3 PM. A few hours later, I received another call asking me to come at 11 AM again. This created unnecessary confusion and reflected poor coordination. I traveled approximately 13 km to the office expecting the discussion that had been communicated to me. Instead, I was surprised with an unannounced whiteboard interview. Had I been informed beforehand, I would have prepared accordingly. Conducting an additional technical evaluation is completely acceptable, but candidates should be informed in advance so they can prepare and manage expectations. After investing significant time across multiple interview rounds, traveling to the office, and participating in an unexpected whiteboard session, I received no clear communication regarding the outcome. The lack of follow-up further added to the frustration. My feedback is simple: * Be transparent about interview stages. * Do not describe a technical evaluation as a discussion. * Improve scheduling coordination. * Respect candidates' time and effort. * Provide timely communication after final rounds. The technical rounds themselves were fair, but the overall candidate experience and communication process need significant improvement.

Round 1 – Online Assessment: The first round consisted of MCQs and a coding section focused on aptitude, programming fundamentals, and problem-solving skills. Round 2 – Technical Interview: The technical round mainly focused on DSA concepts. The interviewer asked one coding/problem-solving question and evaluated the approach, logic, optimization, and communication skills. Round 3 – Project Discussion: This round was completely based on projects mentioned in the resume. The discussion included project architecture, tech stack, challenges faced, implementation details, and individual contributions. Round 4 – HR Interview: The HR round covered general behavioral questions, communication skills, career goals, availability, and overall fit for the role and company culture.