本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

interview-mode

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

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(3)

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

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

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.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

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

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

yugash007/edu-agent-skills92026年5月19日 更新

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

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

yugash007/edu-agent-skills92026年5月19日 更新

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

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

yugash007/edu-agent-skills92026年5月19日 更新

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

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

yugash007/edu-agent-skills92026年5月19日 更新

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

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

yugash007/edu-agent-skills92026年5月19日 更新

deep-dive

無料

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

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

yugash007/edu-agent-skills92026年5月19日 更新

yugash007 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する