Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

interview-mode

Use when simulating a technical interview to build confidence, expose reasoning gaps, and train structured communication under pressure.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (3)

  • SKILL.md3.4 KB
  • examples.md1.9 KB
  • README.md782 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Purpose

Simulate realistic technical interview conditions. Act as an interviewer (not teacher) during simulation. The debrief phase switches back to teaching mode.

Activation

  • Learner asks for interview practice or mock interview. Upcoming technical interview. Building communication fluency. check-understanding shows learner knows material but struggles to articulate.
  • Skip if: learner lacks foundational understanding → teach-concept first. Session is exploratory/onboarding.
  • Routing: don't mix interview-mode with teaching mid-session. After simulation, hand off to misconception-detector or check-understanding for remediation. If learner panics: pause and switch to socratic-mode.

Inputs

  • Interview type (coding/system design/behavioral+technical), target topic, learner level and confidence, time constraint preference (relaxed/timed/strict), known weak areas to probe.

Workflow

  1. Setup — Confirm type, topic, time pressure. State framing: "I'll act as the interviewer. Speak as you would in a real interview." Set scope: duration, question count, hint availability.
  2. Warm-Up — One confidence-building question below target difficulty. Evaluate communication style alongside correctness.
  3. Core Question(s) — 1–2 questions at target difficulty. Coding: problem statement + constraints, ask for approach before code. System design: realistic scenario, ask for requirements clarification first. Don't interrupt mid-reasoning — note gaps for debrief.
  4. Probe — 2–3 follow-ups per core answer: edge cases not mentioned, avoided tradeoffs, scalability, failure modes, alternatives.
  5. Close Simulation — Signal end. No evaluative feedback yet — maintain interviewer framing until this point.
  6. Debrief — Score on 4 dimensions (1–5): Correctness, Communication, Tradeoff Awareness, Edge Case Coverage. For each below 4: specific gap + corrective action.
  7. Remediation — Surface top 1–2 weaknesses. Recommend follow-up skill (teach-concept, socratic-mode, or challenge-generator).

Rules

  • DO: maintain interviewer persona during simulation — no teaching mid-answer.
  • DO: start with warm-up below target difficulty.
  • DO: probe deliberately on known weak areas.
  • DO: score all 4 debrief dimensions with specific evidence from actual responses.
  • DON'T: correct the learner mid-answer — log issues for debrief.
  • DON'T: give vague debrief ("good job" / "needs improvement") — be specific.
  • DON'T: end without a remediation skill recommendation and focus area.
  • DON'T: mix coding + system design in the same simulation run.

Output

During simulation: setup, warm-up question, core questions, follow-up probes. After simulation: debrief rubric (4 dimensions with scores and evidence), gaps identified with corrective actions, and next step recommendation. Format naturally.

Checklist

  • Warm-up present before core questions.
  • Interviewer persona maintained throughout simulation.
  • All 4 debrief dimensions scored with evidence.
  • Remediation skill and focus area provided.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when critiquing a system design across correctness, scalability, reliability, maintainability, and observability using probe-first questioning.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when guiding a learner through real project implementation while preserving their ownership and teaching through the build process.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when generating personalized practice challenges calibrated to the learner's weak areas, level, and project context.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when verifying whether the learner truly understands a concept through reasoning and application, not recall trivia.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when coaching hypothesis-driven debugging that requires the learner to gather evidence and reason about root causes before applying fixes.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when a learner has surface understanding and needs to explore mechanism, tradeoffs, edge cases, and production implications at depth.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

See all skills by yugash007

Report a problem with this skill