Woven Reviews

Summary: I had a great experience using the product and recommend it to any company looking to hire software talent.

Positive: * It tests a real-world scenario via the code review.
* The code test is much closer to the type of problems encountered on the job. This is way better than an algorithm test.
* The time given was adequate.
* The feedback on the test is the icing on the cake. Woven gives a detailed breakdown of what was done well and what could have been improved.

Negative: * As per the Woven feedback, I did great. However, I was not invited for an interview. If doing well in the test does not guarantee an invite, I believe that means there is a variance between what Woven is testing for and what their client wants.

Summary: It was great, I felt I was evaluated as a technical candidate in a right way. There are few test companies that achieve this, and you are one of them. Keep doing it that way!

Positive: I loved the format of Woven for technical challenges (unaware if they have other kind of challenges), evaluating not just raw coding skills but also problem solving and code review skills. And they do that in a way that resembles very well what you do on a daily basis as an engineer.

The post-challenge report received is so complete, not only to let you know what you should improve as an engineer, but also very useful for the hiring companies, as they don't need to bother into providing feedback to people that didn't pass the challenge.

Also, I like the time format of the challenge, as you have time limits for each test, but you can take time between tests. Sometimes is so difficult to time boxing 2 or3 hours of your time in a single day, and this helps you to take maybe a day or less with ample of space, to leverage the time off that you have spread through your day, to take the individual tests.

Negative: Maybe the only thing, which is very insignificant, is the fact that it wasn't very clear, after finishing one of the tests of the challenge, that I can pause there before taking the next test. I know it is part of the indications, but in the UI itself, maybe the flow could take me to the home page of the challenge instead of trying to take me immediately to the next test.

Summary: Best service for tech interview I've ever met so far. really like this kind of interview tasks which can really focus on the real world issues, instead of leetcode

Positive: * Very good real-world practical-oriented development tasks, which can really test how candidates development skills are in real world issues
* Good review & feedback, detailed feedbacks are helpful

Negative: * the pop-up box in the online IDE is kind of annoying sometime, especially you are in a tight time slot.
* it would be better that the panel for test results can be toggled, as the panel for description is so small.

Summary: Overall, this was a solid experience. I would recommend that other organizations use Woven during the interview process.

Positive: 1) The UI was clean and easy to navigate.
2) The instructions were simple and clear. They were written in a good font.
3) The practice mimicked real world scenarios.

Negative: 1) I wish that I could submit half the exam earlier instead of both halves at once.

Summary: Overall, Woven is a must-have for any small to mid-size engineering teams actively recruiting. It reduces strain on internal engineers to administer and grade technical assessments, all while holding candidates to a high and fair standard of quality.

Positive: Woven captures the feeling of working in a real engineering environment, which is paramount for a quality technical interview experience. As an interviewee, Woven has give me a more leveled experience than using other, more traditional "leetcode" platforms. It mimics applicable tasks to the role I'm interviewing for, which allows me to better present my ability as a prospective engineer.
Additionally, Woven allowed me to see where I made mistakes, contributing to my continual growth.

Negative: Woven is a product with room to grow. It may not have all the features and visual polish of a more mature product, but it has a great core feature set regardless.

Summary: Very impressed by the product and hope they can improve their frontend UX to make it more smooth for candidates.

Positive: I liked the GitHub review mock interview. It's very realistic and it's way better than those leetcode style interviews.

Negative: The IDE experience is subpar considering many alternatives use VSCode embed to improve developer ergonomic

Summary: Woven offers a top-notch technical assessment solution for experienced developers, enhancing hiring efficiency and candidate experience. Despite potential cost considerations, its benefits make it highly recommended.

Positive: Human-Powered Evaluation - Certified engineers provide nuanced assessment.
Unique Scenarios - Github Pull Request Review, Systems Design tailored for senior roles.
Improved Candidate Experience - Reduces drop-off rates for senior engineers.
Efficiency - Saves time in the hiring process.
Replace Take-home Projects - Streamlines hiring without sacrificing quality.

Negative: Cost - May be prohibitive for smaller companies.
Learning Curve - Implementing new assessment methods may require adjustment

Summary: Overall the work simulation was something new, challenging, and insightful in terms of feedback. There could be a few things fine-tuned and improved but I would strongly advocate Woven, and encourage companies to prefer platforms like Woven, which use work simulation exercises to judge the capability of candidates rather than the legacy competitive coding platforms that only focus on DSA.

Positive: - Work simulation exercises (like debugging and PR reviewing) are pretty close to real problem-solving experiences in a work environment.
- Scoring is not only based on DSA problem solving like the legacy competitive coding platforms in the market.
- Feedback on the exercise was provided by engineers which was insightful in identifying key points to improve in my approach.

Negative: - Time for each specific exercise is not simulative and needs to be calibrated better. E.g. completing a PR review in 30 minutes is good enough if based on the premise that I would know the existing codebase, so 30 mins for the exercise felt a bit less. Maybe add some time to read the code, and give 20-30 mins on top of that to review the PR.
- Debugging exercise was a bit more open-ended and the answer format can be tuned a bit better for candidates to reach favorable results if they can think in the right direction.