Teleport Site Reliability Engineer Interview Questions
& Process

This interview process is not worth your time. There's no transparency in grading or progress. They don't respect your time or effort, especially when you're working full-time elsewhere. It's more of an intense coding challenge with unrealistic expectations for a 2-week period. The process has 3 parts: 1. a design doc, 2. code, and 3. automation, all submitted as PRs. They do a walkthrough, but you can't ask questions afterward, as it's seen as not being receptive. I only got nitpicky comments on my code, like an uppercase typo. I went beyond by implementing a Kubernetes control loop for replica reconciliation, with signal handling, clear error logging, clean code, and good test structure. My code coverage was 65%, which is good given the 2-week constraint. My PR was approved in about 2 days, but the last one was put on hold until the deadline, and communication stopped for an offline review. They said they encountered path errors despite following my docs. There were too many things to focus on, like security, cert encryption, panic management, and automation functionality. They failed me on a single execution test at the end, which I could have fixed in 5 minutes. They don't grade your coding style or how you implement feedback; it's just about whether your code is production-ready or not. You get no credit for how you got there. If this is how they treat candidates, imagine how they'd react to mistakes.

The interview process here is pretty tough, and while they say it's fair, I felt it really wasn't. I also got a vibe of elitism, but I didn't interact enough to be sure. It starts with a TripleByte quiz, then a Zoom call with the recruiter, followed by a Zoom call with the team lead, and finally, a programming challenge. They do list this out in the job posting, which is helpful, and the recruiter was upfront about salary ranges. The actual interview, though, was less great. The main part is a take-home programming assignment due in two weeks. You get added to a team Slack channel for communication and submit pull requests to a GitHub repo for code review. They aim to mirror actual work, which is a lot to ask of a candidate. The code review part could be better. As one review mentioned, they 'nitpick on small things' and it felt like a 'my-way-or-the-highway' situation, which matched my experience. A lot of the feedback was good, but some felt like nitpicking. There's a power imbalance because they decide your offer, making it hard to push back. I felt like I was 'splitting hairs' but was afraid to argue too much. Another candidate felt an 'arrogant attitude,' which I also observed with one reviewer being more hostile than necessary. Senior engineers shouldn't try to prove they're better than juniors. Code reviews also took longer than I expected, likely due to multiple candidates and their regular work, but it was annoying. They said my code improved a lot with review. Since I applied for a junior role, I thought this would be good. I believe companies should help juniors grow, but it felt like they expect perfect code from everyone, regardless of level. They'd probably disagree, but that's the impression I got.

Very low friction process, majority of which is a take home exercise that allows candidates to really showcase their skills. Good communication throughout the process. Interview questions and tasks relevant to the job.