| name | interview-mode |
| description | Use when simulating a technical interview to build confidence, expose reasoning gaps, and train structured communication under pressure. |
| version | 1.1.0 |
| authors | ["edu-agent-skills contributors"] |
| tags | ["assessment","interview","pressure-simulation","reasoning"] |
| status | stable |
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
- 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.
- Warm-Up — One confidence-building question below target difficulty. Evaluate communication style alongside correctness.
- 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.
- Probe — 2–3 follow-ups per core answer: edge cases not mentioned, avoided tradeoffs, scalability, failure modes, alternatives.
- Close Simulation — Signal end. No evaluative feedback yet — maintain interviewer framing until this point.
- Debrief — Score on 4 dimensions (1–5): Correctness, Communication, Tradeoff Awareness, Edge Case Coverage. For each below 4: specific gap + corrective action.
- 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
