Evaluation

Rubric-guided, evidence-backed, reasoning-aware.

SystemRound evaluates system design answers the way a serious interviewer does: by following the reasoning chain from requirements to estimates, APIs, data, architecture, scaling, reliability, and trade-offs.

Start a practice problem Browse lessons

How it works

Four layers, one diagnosis.

Authored criteria

Each problem stage has authored expectations for scope, estimates, API/data choices, architecture, scaling, reliability, and trade-offs.

Evidence from your answer

The evaluator cites what you wrote or drew, then checks whether that evidence supports the design decision being evaluated.

Reasoning review

Different wording can earn credit. Unsupported components, missing assumptions, weak trade-offs, and brittle failure behavior are still flagged.

Repair loop

Meaningful gaps route to a lesson, pattern, or stage retry so your next session has a concrete target instead of a vague score.

What the evaluator checks

Did the answer constrain the problem with requirements and non-goals?
Did capacity math influence the architecture instead of appearing as decoration?
Were API and data choices justified by access patterns and failure behavior?
Were trade-offs named, defended, and connected to the prompt?
Did the design explain bottlenecks, backpressure, availability, and recovery?

What it is not

It is not a keyword scanner. Equivalent phrasing can still satisfy a criterion.
It is not a perfect human interviewer. AI-assisted judgments can be disputed and re-checked.
It is not a memorized-architecture reward system. Box lists without rationale are treated as weak signal.

Loading…