Choose from a wide range of NEWCV resume templates and customize your NEWCV design with a single click.
Use ATS-optimised Resume and resume templates that pass applicant tracking systems. Our Resume builder helps recruiters read, scan, and shortlist your Resume faster.
Use professional field-tested resume templates that follow the exact Resume rules employers look for.
Create Resume
Use professional field-tested resume templates that follow the exact Resume rules employers look for.
Create ResumeModern app developer technical assessments are no longer simple coding quizzes. Most companies now evaluate whether candidates can build production-ready mobile features under realistic engineering constraints. That means recruiters and engineering teams are assessing architecture decisions, API integration quality, authentication flows, offline handling, testing coverage, debugging ability, Git hygiene, and overall release readiness, not just whether the app compiles.
The strongest candidates treat take-home projects like miniature production applications. They build clean, scalable codebases, document tradeoffs clearly, handle edge cases, and demonstrate professional engineering judgment. Weak candidates focus only on “making it work” while ignoring maintainability, accessibility, performance, testing, and developer experience.
Whether you're preparing for an iOS assessment, Android coding challenge, Flutter take-home project, or React Native evaluation, understanding how hiring teams actually score these assessments dramatically increases your chances of advancing to final interviews.
Most candidates misunderstand the purpose of mobile coding assessments.
Engineering teams are rarely trying to find the “smartest” programmer. They are trying to reduce hiring risk.
A mobile app assessment is designed to answer questions like:
Can this developer ship production-quality code?
Will they create maintainable architecture or technical debt?
Can they work independently without constant oversight?
Do they understand modern mobile engineering standards?
Will senior engineers trust their pull requests?
Can they handle real-world app complexity beyond tutorials?
Different companies evaluate developers differently depending on engineering maturity, hiring urgency, and product complexity.
These usually last 45 to 120 minutes.
Common tasks include:
Building a small CRUD feature
Consuming an API
Debugging broken code
Implementing state management
Refactoring poor architecture
Adding pagination or search
Fixing performance issues
iOS technical assessments usually emphasize platform conventions and native engineering standards.
Hiring managers typically evaluate:
Swift proficiency
SwiftUI or UIKit competence
MVVM or clean architecture usage
Concurrency handling
Core Data or local persistence
API integration quality
Dependency management
Error handling
Do they think like a product engineer or just a coder?
This is why modern coding challenges increasingly simulate real product work instead of algorithm-heavy interviews.
The strongest candidates consistently show:
Clean architecture decisions
Strong separation of concerns
Reliable API handling
Thoughtful error states
Good UX instincts
Consistent coding conventions
Real testing discipline
Production-level attention to detail
Recruiters often see candidates fail because they rush implementation without explaining tradeoffs.
Strong candidates narrate their decisions clearly while maintaining code quality under time pressure.
These are now the most common mobile engineering assessments.
Typical expectations include:
Multi-screen mobile application
Authentication flow
API integration
Local persistence
Offline support
Error handling
Unit testing
Clean architecture
README documentation
Git commit history
Take-home projects are heavily weighted because they reveal how candidates work without interview pressure.
This is where engineering maturity becomes obvious.
These evaluate troubleshooting ability rather than feature building.
Candidates may receive:
Crashing apps
Broken API integrations
Memory leaks
Slow rendering issues
State synchronization bugs
UI inconsistencies
Race conditions
Companies use debugging challenges because many developers can build features, but far fewer can diagnose production problems efficiently.
Senior and mid-level candidates increasingly face architecture-focused evaluations.
Typical prompts include:
Design a scalable app structure
Explain state management strategy
Organize networking layers
Handle dependency injection
Support offline synchronization
Plan modularization strategy
These exercises evaluate long-term engineering thinking.
Memory management awareness
Accessibility support
Strong iOS candidates understand Apple ecosystem expectations beyond coding syntax.
Top-performing candidates usually:
Use native iOS patterns correctly
Avoid bloated view controllers
Handle loading and failure states elegantly
Support dynamic type and accessibility
Use structured concurrency cleanly
Write maintainable networking layers
Demonstrate polished UI behavior
Recruiters and engineering teams repeatedly see:
Massive view controllers
Poor state management
Hardcoded values everywhere
No loading indicators
Missing accessibility labels
Inconsistent navigation patterns
Weak error handling
No testing coverage
Unclear folder organization
Many candidates underestimate how heavily polish and architecture influence scoring.
Android assessments often focus heavily on architecture scalability and lifecycle management.
Typical evaluation areas include:
Kotlin proficiency
Jetpack Compose or XML UI skills
Clean architecture implementation
Dependency injection
State management
Coroutines usage
Room database integration
API consumption
Offline handling
Material Design consistency
Android hiring managers often pay particularly close attention to maintainability.
Strong candidates typically demonstrate:
Clear package structure
Predictable state handling
Proper lifecycle awareness
Modern Android architecture
Efficient asynchronous handling
Strong UI responsiveness
Thoughtful caching strategies
Frequent rejection reasons include:
Business logic inside Activities
Poor coroutine handling
Memory leaks
Unstable navigation
Missing loading states
Fragile architecture
Weak test coverage
Inconsistent UI behavior
Flutter assessments increasingly focus on cross-platform scalability rather than simple UI cloning.
Companies typically evaluate:
Dart proficiency
State management approach
Widget organization
Responsiveness
API integration
Offline persistence
Platform awareness
Performance optimization
Testing discipline
High-scoring Flutter submissions often include:
Clean widget decomposition
Consistent theming
Predictable state management
Smooth animations
Efficient rebuild handling
Clear folder organization
Strong error states
Common issues include:
Excessive widget nesting
Poor state management decisions
Overengineering simple features
No responsive behavior
Lack of loading states
Weak architecture separation
Large monolithic files
React Native evaluations frequently emphasize JavaScript engineering maturity alongside mobile UX understanding.
Common evaluation areas include:
React fundamentals
State management
API integration
Component architecture
Performance optimization
Navigation handling
Offline support
Cross-platform consistency
Native module awareness
Top candidates often:
Build reusable components
Maintain clean hooks structure
Avoid unnecessary re-renders
Handle async flows correctly
Structure scalable state management
Demonstrate production-grade organization
Recruiters frequently flag:
Excessive prop drilling
Poor component separation
Weak error handling
Performance bottlenecks
No memoization strategy
Inconsistent styling systems
Fragile navigation flows
CRUD projects remain popular because they simulate actual product engineering work.
Companies can quickly evaluate whether candidates understand:
Data flow architecture
API communication
State synchronization
Validation handling
UI consistency
Error states
Persistence logic
User interaction patterns
Typical CRUD assessment features include:
User authentication
List rendering
Create and edit forms
Delete operations
Search functionality
Pagination
Pull-to-refresh
Offline caching
CRUD projects expose engineering maturity surprisingly well.
Weak candidates create fragile demos.
Strong candidates build scalable systems.
Authentication flows are one of the fastest ways engineering teams assess production readiness.
Most companies expect candidates to properly handle:
Token storage
Session persistence
Login validation
Logout behavior
Token expiration
Error handling
Secure storage practices
Common red flags include:
Tokens stored insecurely
No refresh handling
Poor validation
Missing loading states
Hardcoded credentials
No session recovery logic
Higher-scoring candidates typically:
Separate authentication layers cleanly
Handle edge cases thoughtfully
Use secure storage mechanisms
Maintain predictable session behavior
Provide polished UX during transitions
Many companies now explicitly evaluate offline resilience.
This is especially true for:
Enterprise applications
Logistics apps
Healthcare products
Retail systems
Productivity tools
Field-service platforms
Candidates may need to demonstrate:
Local caching
Persistent storage
Retry strategies
Sync handling
Offline indicators
Queue management
Offline support is often a hidden differentiator.
Most candidates skip it entirely.
Candidates who implement even basic offline resilience immediately stand out because it signals real production experience.
API integration is one of the most heavily scored assessment areas.
Companies evaluate:
Networking abstraction quality
Error handling
Parsing reliability
Retry behavior
Loading state management
Empty state handling
Timeout handling
Architecture separation
Weak Example
Fetching API data directly inside UI components with no abstraction, no retries, and generic error messages.
Good Example
Using dedicated networking layers, centralized error handling, typed models, retry strategies, and clean separation between UI and business logic.
Debugging tasks often expose the gap between tutorial developers and experienced engineers.
Strong debugging candidates:
Reproduce issues methodically
Isolate root causes efficiently
Explain debugging logic clearly
Avoid random trial-and-error fixes
Use logs strategically
Understand platform tooling deeply
Weak candidates often:
Guess repeatedly
Change unrelated code
Ignore reproducibility
Panic under ambiguity
Fail to explain reasoning
Engineering managers care deeply about debugging ability because production mobile engineering is largely debugging and maintenance.
Modern mobile teams increasingly test performance awareness.
Typical performance-related tasks include:
Reducing unnecessary renders
Optimizing list performance
Improving startup time
Handling image caching
Fixing memory leaks
Preventing UI jank
Strong candidates understand:
Rendering behavior
State update efficiency
Memory implications
Async execution patterns
Profiling tools
Scalability tradeoffs
Performance optimization assessments are especially common at startups and consumer-facing app companies.
Many candidates underestimate how heavily teams evaluate production readiness.
A technically functional app can still fail an assessment if it feels unfinished.
Stable app behavior
Reliable navigation
Graceful error handling
Loading states
Empty states
Accessibility support
Consistent UI spacing
Responsive layouts
Crash prevention
Environment configuration
Engineering managers often reject candidates because the app “does not feel shippable.”
That phrase usually means:
Poor UX polish
Fragile flows
Missing edge-case handling
Inconsistent interactions
Weak architecture confidence
Accessibility has become a meaningful evaluation category.
Especially in enterprise hiring environments.
Common accessibility expectations include:
Screen reader labels
Dynamic text support
Contrast compliance
Touch target sizing
Keyboard navigation support
Semantic structure
Candidates who ignore accessibility often signal lack of production experience.
Many candidates still skip testing entirely.
This is a major mistake.
Even minimal but thoughtful testing significantly improves evaluation scores.
Unit tests
Basic UI tests
ViewModel or business logic tests
Networking layer tests
State management validation
Testing demonstrates:
Engineering discipline
Maintainability awareness
Long-term thinking
Reliability mindset
Candidates without tests are often viewed as riskier hires.
Many candidates lose points before reviewers even run the app.
Single massive commit
Generic commit messages
Broken commit history
Experimental junk code
Logical commit structure
Clear commit messages
Incremental development
Professional repository organization
Strong READMEs usually include:
Setup instructions
Architecture explanation
Tradeoff decisions
Known limitations
Screenshots or demos
Dependency explanations
A strong README dramatically improves reviewer confidence.
Most engineering teams use informal or semi-structured rubrics.
Typical scoring categories include:
Code quality
Architecture
Maintainability
Feature completeness
Performance
UX polish
Accessibility
Testing
Documentation
Communication clarity
In real hiring decisions, these categories usually carry the highest weight:
Architecture quality
Maintainability
Engineering judgment
Production readiness
Communication clarity
Feature completeness alone rarely guarantees success.
Assessment style often reflects company engineering culture.
Startups usually prioritize:
Speed
Product thinking
Practical tradeoffs
Shipping mindset
Fast iteration ability
Startup assessments may tolerate less-perfect architecture if the product execution is strong.
Enterprise companies typically emphasize:
Scalability
Architecture consistency
Documentation
Maintainability
Testing discipline
Security awareness
Enterprise reviewers are often stricter about process quality.
Understanding assessment format helps candidates prepare strategically.
Timed challenges evaluate:
Decision-making under pressure
Prioritization ability
Engineering speed
Communication clarity
Take-home projects evaluate:
Engineering maturity
Architecture decisions
Attention to detail
Long-term maintainability
Candidates should approach timed assessments differently.
In timed exercises:
Prioritize clarity over perfection
Explain tradeoffs openly
Build stable fundamentals first
In take-home projects:
Optimize for production readiness
Demonstrate architecture discipline
Polish the developer experience
The most common failure patterns include:
Overengineering simple requirements
Ignoring edge cases
Weak error handling
No testing strategy
Poor project organization
Missing accessibility support
Incomplete documentation
Fragile state management
Rushed UI polish
No architectural explanation
Many candidates build apps for themselves instead of for reviewers.
Reviewers need confidence quickly.
Your assessment should communicate:
Professionalism
Maintainability
Engineering judgment
Production awareness
Top-performing candidates usually:
Clarify assumptions early
Explain tradeoffs transparently
Prioritize maintainability
Write readable code
Handle unhappy paths carefully
Demonstrate product thinking
Build polished user experiences
Document decisions clearly
The best submissions feel like code another engineer could confidently extend in production.
Upload Resume
Import from Linkedin
