Ve más allá del CV.
Evalúa las competencias.

In the fictional Demo Studio project, a tenant dashboard endpoint had a p95 latency of about 900 ms. I used query logs and EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) on representative data to find an N+1 query pattern and repeated scans when filtering by tenant and date. I replaced per-row lookups with a single scoped query and added a composite index matching the filter and sort order. I checked tenant isolation and compared results before and after the change. In our synthetic example, p95 fell to 280 ms under the same workload. I also monitored write overhead and retained a rollback plan.

I separate authentication from authorization. Each endpoint checks the authenticated user, their role and the tenant that owns the requested resource; a client-supplied tenant ID is never trusted on its own. I validate request schemas, use parameterized SQL and return only necessary fields. Secrets stay outside source code, tokens have short lifetimes, and cookies use secure settings where applicable. I add rate limits and safe error handling, and redact secrets from logs. In the demo project, integration tests include cross-tenant access attempts, expired sessions and malformed input. Dependency updates and security review are part of CI and release planning.

In the demo dashboard, I built a searchable table whose filters were shared with the URL. The difficult part was keeping fast typing, server requests and browser back navigation consistent. I used a typed filter model and runtime validation for URL values, kept draft input local, and debounced requests. I cancelled obsolete requests and ignored stale responses. I added keyboard navigation, explicit loading and empty states, and tests for back navigation and out-of-order responses. I chose simple components over a large state library because the state was confined to one feature.

I start from risks and observable behaviour. Unit tests cover deterministic business rules; integration tests exercise APIs with a real test database; a small set of Playwright journeys covers sign-in, tenant boundaries and critical workflows. I avoid coupling tests to component internals and use stable fixtures with explicit setup. When fixing a bug I add a regression case that fails for the original reason. CI runs fast checks on each change and slower suites separately. I investigate flaky tests instead of repeatedly rerunning them, and remove redundant tests when they no longer protect a meaningful behaviour.

In the fictional team, a junior developer struggled to diagnose intermittent API failures. We agreed on a small learning goal: turn an unclear bug report into a reproducible test. During pairing, I asked them to explain their hypothesis, inspect logs and narrow the input rather than taking over. We then wrote the regression test and a short debugging note together. In later reviews I separated blocking issues from suggestions and explained the reason behind each comment. We reduced pairing gradually as they became independent. I would assess progress through the problems they could solve and the questions they asked, not the number of lines written.

For a fictional CSV export feature, synchronous parsing and serialization caused event-loop delays that affected other requests. I measured event-loop lag, CPU usage and endpoint latency before changing the code. I moved long exports to a bounded background queue, streamed the output and applied backpressure instead of holding the whole dataset in memory. The API returned a job reference and the UI displayed progress. I capped concurrency to protect the database and tested failure recovery and duplicate requests. The trade-off was an asynchronous user flow, so we agreed on that behaviour with the product team. I would compare p95 latency, memory and error rates under the same load before claiming an improvement.

For the fictional Sample Works project, I configured Jest for fast TypeScript business-logic tests and a separate integration suite against an isolated PostgreSQL database. The CI pipeline installed locked dependencies, checked formatting and types, ran unit tests, then integration tests and a production build. Each test run used its own database state and secrets were injected by the CI environment. Pull requests could not merge if required checks failed. We added coverage for tenant boundaries and export retries after identifying risks, rather than chasing a coverage percentage. The benefit was earlier feedback and reproducible failures; I would track escaped regressions and flaky-test frequency to see whether it helped.

I first describe the observed behaviour, impact and constraints, then list a few testable hypotheses. I reproduce the issue with the smallest useful case and change one variable at a time. In the fictional dashboard, users sometimes saw old search results after typing quickly. I used network timings to show that responses arrived out of order. I added request cancellation and a current-request guard, then a test that deliberately reversed response order. I shared a short explanation with the team and checked the fix with the designer. If evidence contradicts my hypothesis, I change direction; if I am stuck, I ask a colleague with a concise reproduction instead of hiding the delay.

For the demo export feature, I worked with a designer, product manager and support colleague. The initial request was an instant download, but large datasets made that unreliable. I explained the constraint with measurements and proposed a background export with clear status and a retry option. We agreed on acceptance criteria for accessibility, completion time and failure messages, then released a small version behind a feature flag. Weekly demos exposed misunderstandings early. When scope grew, I made the delivery trade-offs explicit and let the product manager choose priorities. I documented the final decision and a rollback procedure for the team.

I first understand the intended behaviour and read the change in context. I check correctness, security boundaries, error handling, accessibility and meaningful tests before style. Automated formatting handles routine consistency so comments can focus on decisions. I label blocking issues and optional suggestions, explain the reason, and ask questions when I lack context. I keep reviews small and timely; for a complex design disagreement I propose a short discussion and record the outcome. In the demo team, a recurring checklist covered tenant isolation and database migrations. I also review my own assumptions and accept a simpler solution when it meets the requirements.