Stop relying on surface-level signals. Get a rigorous, evidence-backed technical breakdown of every candidate instantly.
Click on any section to learn what makes AIVIA reports different from generic feedback.
The candidate shows solid conceptual understanding of reliability, state machines, and concurrency control. The main gap is translating concepts into concrete, end-to-end scenarios.
A high-level summary synthesized from the full conversation. Captures the overall impression an interviewer would form.
Specific competencies demonstrated during the evaluation. Not generic praise, these are evidence-backed observations.
Don’t ask generic questions next round. We give you specific weak points to dig into during your face-to-face.
Opens the complete AIVIA evaluation with everything you need to understand candidate performance.
Go deeper than the summary. Every response is analyzed individually with specific observations and recommendations.
You consistently identified the right conceptual tools (idempotency, status-driven state, logs as source of truth), but stayed too abstract. To strengthen: explicitly walk through concrete race/failure scenarios.
On durability and restarts, you showed a solid grasp of using per-item state. What's missing: clarity on how the system actually behaves in specific failure cases.
For database-based coordination, you correctly referenced optimistic locking and leasing. You'd add value by: tying version checks to a concrete overlapping-runs scenario.