During my interaction with Snyk, the interview didn’t feel like a structured process so much as a series of disconnected questions. There were a number of specific or tactical questions asked, but without any clear context about the role’s priorities, what success looks like, or the problems the team is trying to solve. As a result, it was difficult to give meaningful, tailored answers, and in several cases I had to make assumptions about the role rather than responding to a clearly defined brief. This lack of context made the conversation feel ungrounded. When questions aren’t anchored to a defined role, it becomes harder for candidates to demonstrate their most relevant experience, and responses risk being misinterpreted or undervalued. It also gives the impression that either the role hasn’t been fully scoped internally, or that there isn’t alignment on what is actually being assessed. Overall, a clearer structure and better framing would make a significant difference. Providing context around the role, its objectives, and how each question relates to expected outcomes would allow candidates to engage more effectively and would lead to a more accurate and fair evaluation on both sides. I was told they would follow up either way but never heard back.