The Hostile Interview
Get a model to interview you properly — following up on weak answers instead of moving politely on. Uncomfortable, and considerably more useful than rehearsing answers you already have.
Why this one
Default interview practice is useless because the model accepts whatever you say and offers encouragement. Real interviewers notice vagueness and dig. The prompt has to explicitly instruct that behaviour, and then you have to sit through it.
Steps
Set the follow-up rule up front
The instruction to pursue vague answers rather than accept them is what makes this work at all.
PromptYou are interviewing me for [role]. Rules: - One question at a time, then wait - If my answer is vague, lacks a specific example, or claims a result without a number, follow up on that exact point instead of moving on - Follow up up to three times before moving on - Do not encourage me or say "great answer" - After 8 questions, tell me my two weakest answers and precisely why
Answer honestly, including badly
Do not construct ideal answers. You are testing your actual recall under pressure, and a rehearsed answer to a question you were not asked is not useful data.
Notice which follow-ups hurt
The questions where you started padding are the ones to prepare. Padding is the reliable signal — you can feel it happening in real time.
Fix by finding evidence, not phrasing
For each weak answer, go and find the actual example or number. If you cannot find one, that is worth knowing before an interview rather than during one, and a better-phrased vague answer fools nobody.
You should end up with
Two identified weak areas with real evidence gathered for each.
Done when
- The interviewer followed up rather than accepting vague answers
- You identified at least two answers lacking specifics
- You found real evidence rather than better wording
If you want to go further
- Re-run a week later with the same prompt and see whether the weak areas moved