contents: add coding signals

contents/coding-round-overview.md

@@ -9,5 +9,6 @@ Coding interviews are tough. But fortunately, there's a tried and prove method t
 1. Study CS fundamentals
 1. Practice solving algorithm questions
 1. Internalize the [Do's and Don'ts of interviews](./cheatsheet.md)
+1. Know what [signals and behaviors](./coding-signals.md) interviewers are looking out for
 1. Practice doing mock interviews
 1. Interview successfully to get the job

contents/coding-signals.md

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+---
+id: coding-signals
+title: Coding Signals
+---
+
+The point of interviews is for interviewers to extract signals from certain candidate behaviors. In coding interviews, the signals can be broadly classified into the following categories: Problem Solving, Technical Competency, Testing, and Communication.
+
+When interviewers take down interview feedback, these are likely what is on their feedback sheet.
+
+## Problem Solving
+
+#### Understanding the problem
+
+- 👍 Understood the key aspects of the problem quickly
+- 👎 Had difficulty in understanding the key aspects of the problem
+
+#### Solution/approach
+
+- 👍 Approached the problem in a systematic and logical manner
+- 👎 Did not demonstrate a logical thought process for approaching the problem
+
+#### Improving the solution
+
+- 👍 Suggested a more efficient solution when prompted, or proactively coming up with a better solution
+- 👎 Had difficulty in coming up with a more efficient solution even after being prompted
+
+#### Trade-offs analysis
+
+- 👍 Explained the trade-offs of different approaches clearly and correctly
+- 👎 Failed to describe trade-offs of different approaches
+
+#### Hinting
+
+- 👍 Did not require any major hints
+- 👎 Needed plenty of hints
+
+## Technical Competency
+
+#### Speed
+
+- 👍 Quickly implemented a working solution
+- 👎 Was not able to complete the solution
+
+#### Correctness/Accuracy
+
+- 👍 Implemented the solution correctly (e.g., working solution, minimal bugs)
+- 👎 Unable to correctly implement a solution (e.g., non-working solution, incorrect logic, and/or serious bugs)
+
+#### Complexity analysis
+
+- 👍 Able to determine the algorithmic time and space complexity
+- 👎 Was not able to determine the algorithmic time and space complexity (explain why TC came up with such an answer)
+
+#### Mastery of chosen programming language
+
+- 👍 Demonstrated mastery of the chosen programming language
+- 👎 Does not seem to be familiar with the chosen programming language
+
+#### Implementation
+
+- 👍 Implementation was clean and straightforward
+- 👎 Implementation was unnecessarily complex and/or messy
+
+#### Coding style
+
+- 👍 Coding style was neat (proper indentation, spacing and no bad practices)
+- 👎 Coding style was messy (inconsistent indentation, weird spacings, etc)
+
+## Testing
+
+#### Common cases
+
+- 👍 Tested their code against various typical cases
+- 👎 Failed to test the code against typical cases
+
+#### Corner cases
+
+- 👍 Found and handled corner/edge cases
+- 👎 Failed to consider corner/edge cases
+
+#### Self-correction
+
+- 👍 Identified and corrected bugs in the code (where applicable)
+- 👎 Was not able to discover and fix bugs even after being prompted
+
+## Communication
+
+#### Clarify problem
+
+- 👍 Appropriately asked good, clarifying questions about the problem
+- 👎 Failed to confirm understanding/ask appropriate questions
+
+#### Communicating approach
+
+- 👍 Able to explain overall approach, technical terms and acronyms (where applicable)
+- 👎 Failed to effectively explain overall approach, technical terms and acronyms (where applicable)

website/sidebars.js

@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ module.exports = {
           'best-practice-questions',
           'during-coding-interview',
           'cheatsheet',
+          'coding-signals',
           'mock-interviews',
         ],
       },