It seems their approach to the interview has changed. There are a total of 4 rounds. I had to hacker rank assessment first, which can be tricky and took me almost the full hour to complete. Next was the HR screening round. The current talent acquisition person at the time of writing this was fantastic and very culture orientated. We had a great conversational interview, maybe one of the best I ever had. The two lead/principal engineers were in round 3 which was a behavioral interview. It can be a little challenging when you are nervous and are on the spot, at least in my opinion. I personally thought it went well overall and enjoyed the conversation, however they left me in a dust saying they did not want move forward within the hour of the interview with no explanation to why. Before ending the call I asked if they wanted me to clarify anything and I was told no, that I gave great thorough answers. They also didn't realize I already took the hacker rank assessment as they mentioned that would be next or the live coding session, depending if they wanted to move forward. So it seems like not everyone is communicating and im not sure how much that assessment matters. I took it as it was never even looked at besides a pass/fail. As the previous interviewer said from Sept 30th of this year, I am not sure how serious they are about hiring or they are like most other companies right now, looking for the perfect candidate. It also felt like no matter what I said, they were not impressed. I really think I could have shown my skillset during the live coding session, which was the last and final round. Thats just my two cents. The company culture seems great based on conversation and the company is growing in this tough time where others are falling, so sounds stable as well. I would have loved to work here! Being a developer in the medical space has always been a dream of mine. Maybe next time.

I recently went through the interview process at Prompt, which included an initial conversation with the technical team, a 2-hour technical challenge, and a 3-hour final interview. The team I spoke with was professional, and I had what felt like a strong and engaging discussion throughout. I was provided with preparation materials in advance, which I reviewed thoroughly and used to practice relevant scenarios. However, the feedback I received after being passed on was that I seemed to know the technical questions "too well" beforehand, which was confusing given that I had prepared using the materials they provided. With many years of experience working with customer management and billing systems, I felt well-aligned with the role and believed I could contribute meaningfully to the team. The conversations reinforced that impression, which made the outcome particularly surprising and disappointing. The process itself was thorough but also quite time-intensive. Given the level of investment required from candidates, clearer alignment on expectations and evaluation criteria would be helpful. Overall, while the team was professional, the feedback and outcome felt inconsistent with the process, which made the experience frustrating. Advice to the Hiring Team: Ensure that interview expectations and evaluation criteria are clearly aligned, especially when providing candidates with preparation materials. Candidates should not be penalized for being well-prepared using the resources provided, and expectations around that preparation should be clearly communicated.