One phone screener followed by two back-to-back technical “phone interviews” (which are actually screenshared coding exams). If you pass those there are 4-5 more in-person interviews. The technical interviews were described exactly as “a series of technical questions around software development principles, algorithms, architectures and design, as well as a coding exercise.” The two interviews were in fact multiple exercises separated by a fifteen-minute break. The topics they said would be covered were scantly touched and only in the very beginning. One exercise was more of a classic algorithm problem and the second was a hands-on front-end exercise that you complete with on-going instructions from the interviewer. The whole process felt very tight-lipped. I got the impression that the emailed description of the interviews were copy-pasted from the recruiter or more likely generic enough to not give you any real means to prepare. Truth be told, neither were particularly hard. Unfortunately I was taken by surprise to learn that I would NOT be asked any technical questions on the topics listed, but made to do a second exam. I did fairly well on the first and floundered on the second. This can be attributed to a combination of my interviewing skills and the fact that I was a bit shocked to be misled—either deliberately or through a catastrophic failure of communication on their end. I went back to read the email after to make sure I didn’t misunderstand, because it was that audacious. If that is the intention, the interview is an attempt to put you on the ropes and see how you perform under pressure. If that interview dynamic—being lied to and seeing how you adapt to reality— is indicative of their company culture, I am grateful to have failed spectacularly. At one point when I struggled with a question an interviewer actively called me out and implied I lied on my resume. When I explained that the ratings I give are my experience using a language in time—not my literal expertise in it—he walked back the comment a bit, but it felt very “gotcha” and sketchy. During the phone screener I asked them a lot of questions about how their teams were organized, what their mission statement was, how they plan features and sprints, how they estimate time for projects, what is considered merit/promotable (etc). Almost every one of those was met with a “good question, we don’t have an answer for that”—which is honest. I mean, they didn’t try to make up answers that sounded right but were vacuous. However, my impression was that they were very unorganized and inexperienced as a company. Part of this they disclosed openly and attributed to their big plans for expansion; but it seemed like they were headed in a lot of directions all at once and leaning too much on a “we’ll figure it out as we go” attitude.