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 ResumeBackend developer take-home assignments are designed to simulate real engineering work, not algorithm puzzles. Most companies use them to evaluate how you design APIs, structure code, model databases, handle errors, write tests, and communicate technical decisions under realistic constraints. The fastest way to fail is treating the assignment like a quick coding exercise instead of a production-quality backend project.
Strong candidates focus on maintainability, API clarity, security, documentation, testing, and trade-off explanations. Weak candidates over-engineer, skip edge cases, ignore validation, or submit incomplete setup instructions. Hiring managers are usually less concerned with “perfect” architecture than with whether your code reflects senior-level engineering judgment.
If you approach the assignment like a real-world backend service with clean structure, thoughtful design, and clear documentation, you immediately separate yourself from most applicants.
Most candidates misunderstand the real purpose of backend coding tests.
Companies are not only evaluating whether the API works. They are evaluating whether you can operate like a professional backend engineer on a production team.
The assignment is usually designed to answer questions like:
Can this developer write maintainable backend code?
Do they understand API design principles?
Can they model relational or NoSQL data correctly?
Do they think about security and validation?
Can another engineer easily understand their project?
Do they understand real engineering trade-offs?
Recruiters and engineering managers look for readable, maintainable code first.
They evaluate:
Naming consistency
File organization
Separation of concerns
Reusable logic
Service abstraction
Controller cleanliness
Dependency injection usage
Would this person create technical debt or reduce it?
Can they work independently without constant supervision?
This is why many technically functional submissions still get rejected.
A backend assignment that “works” but lacks structure, validation, testing, or documentation often signals junior-level engineering maturity.
Avoidance of duplicated logic
Simplicity over unnecessary complexity
Messy architecture is one of the biggest rejection reasons in backend developer hiring tests.
Strong backend developers design APIs intentionally.
Hiring teams evaluate:
RESTful conventions
Clear route naming
Proper HTTP status codes
Pagination handling
Request validation
Response consistency
Idempotency awareness
Authentication flow quality
Error response structure
Database design reveals engineering maturity very quickly.
Reviewers assess:
Schema normalization
Relationship modeling
Index strategy
Query efficiency
Transaction handling
Migration quality
Constraint usage
Scalability assumptions
Poor schema decisions often eliminate otherwise strong candidates.
Many candidates completely underestimate this area.
Reviewers expect:
Meaningful error messages
Structured API errors
Graceful failure handling
Proper exception management
Validation feedback
Logging strategy
Failure recovery logic
Unhandled edge cases are one of the fastest ways to lose reviewer confidence.
Most backend take-home assignments explicitly evaluate testing discipline.
Strong submissions usually include:
Unit tests
Integration tests
API endpoint tests
Edge case testing
Mocked dependencies
Authentication tests
Database behavior validation
Candidates who skip testing often appear rushed or inexperienced.
A strong README can dramatically improve reviewer perception.
Most hiring teams value:
Fast setup instructions
Environment variable examples
Database initialization steps
API usage examples
Architecture explanation
Assumption documentation
Trade-off explanations
Good documentation lowers reviewer friction, which directly improves evaluation outcomes.
This is the most common backend developer coding test.
Typical requirements include:
User management
Product inventory
Task management system
Blog API
Customer records
Order management
What employers are really evaluating:
Route structure
Validation
Database design
Clean service layers
Error handling
Authentication awareness
Separate business logic from controllers
Add pagination
Use DTOs or serializers
Implement filtering and sorting
Add validation middleware
Write integration tests
Document endpoints
Put everything inside controllers
Skip validation
Hardcode values
Ignore error handling
Use inconsistent API responses
Avoid testing entirely
This assignment tests backend security fundamentals.
Typical features:
User registration
Login
JWT authentication
Password hashing
Refresh tokens
Protected routes
Role-based authorization
Reviewers look carefully at security decisions here.
Storing plain passwords
Weak JWT handling
Missing token expiration
No rate limiting
Poor validation
Exposing sensitive data
Returning stack traces
Secure password hashing
Token rotation awareness
Input sanitization
Authorization middleware
Session invalidation strategy
Secure environment variable handling
These assessments focus more on architecture than coding speed.
Typical tasks include:
Designing relational schemas
Creating migrations
Modeling relationships
Building reporting queries
Handling transactions
Strong submissions demonstrate understanding of real-world scalability.
One-to-many relationships
Many-to-many relationships
Index usage
Query optimization
Data consistency
Soft deletes
Foreign key constraints
Many backend candidates can build APIs, but far fewer understand database trade-offs deeply. Strong schema design immediately differentiates senior-level engineers.
These assignments simulate real SaaS backend workflows.
Examples include:
Payment gateway integration
Third-party webhook processing
External REST API synchronization
OAuth integrations
Email service integration
What reviewers assess:
Retry handling
Timeout management
Error resilience
API abstraction
Logging quality
Security awareness
Senior backend roles often use more architecture-heavy projects.
This tests:
Database efficiency
Collision handling
Scalability thinking
Redirect performance
Caching strategy
Strong candidates discuss:
Base62 encoding
Redis caching
Analytics design
Expiration logic
Horizontal scalability
This evaluates distributed systems thinking.
Reviewers assess:
Redis usage
Sliding window logic
Token bucket implementation
Concurrency handling
Memory efficiency
Most weak submissions fail because they only handle ideal scenarios.
Typical technologies include:
Redis queues
Celery
BullMQ
RabbitMQ
Sidekiq concepts
Reviewers want to see:
Retry mechanisms
Dead-letter handling
Job idempotency
Worker separation
Monitoring awareness
This is common in startup backend interviews.
Typical evaluation areas:
Tenant isolation
Authorization boundaries
Schema strategy
Multi-tenant security
Performance considerations
Strong candidates explain trade-offs between:
Shared databases
Separate schemas
Separate databases
Popular for startups and SaaS companies.
Strong stack combination:
Node.js
Express or NestJS
PostgreSQL
Prisma or TypeORM
Redis
Docker
Fast development
Large ecosystem
Strong API support
Modern hiring popularity
Common in enterprise hiring.
Reviewers expect:
Layered architecture
DTO patterns
Strong typing
Dependency injection
Robust testing
Spring Boot assignments are usually more architecture-heavy than startup Node.js projects.
Increasingly popular for modern backend roles.
Hiring teams like FastAPI because it demonstrates:
Async understanding
Strong API documentation
Python ecosystem familiarity
Typed backend development
Still heavily used for backend hiring assessments.
Strong submissions usually include:
Django REST Framework
Serializer validation
Permission classes
ORM optimization
Migration discipline
Very common in enterprise and Microsoft-focused organizations.
Reviewers often prioritize:
Clean architecture
Dependency injection
Service abstraction
SOLID principles
Testing maturity
A strong structure immediately improves reviewer confidence.
Typical clean backend structure:
controllers
services
repositories
models
middleware
validators
config
tests
docs
scripts
Poor folder organization creates immediate friction for reviewers.
The README is often reviewed before the code itself.
Include:
Project overview
Setup instructions
Environment variables
Database initialization
Docker usage
API documentation
Testing instructions
Assumptions
Trade-offs
Known limitations
A backend project with mediocre code but excellent documentation often performs better than strong code with poor onboarding instructions.
Reviewers mentally simulate whether your codebase would be easy for a real engineering team to adopt.
Strong submissions usually include:
Swagger/OpenAPI
Postman collections
Endpoint examples
Authentication instructions
Error response examples
Missing API documentation is surprisingly common among rejected candidates.
Docker dramatically improves reviewer experience.
Strong candidates include:
Dockerfile
docker-compose
Database container support
Environment configuration
This signals production awareness and engineering maturity.
Most backend developer assignments are intentionally scoped for:
4 to 12 hours for mid-level roles
8 to 20 hours for senior roles
But companies rarely expect perfection.
What matters more:
Prioritization
Trade-off explanation
Stability
Code clarity
Communication
One of the biggest mistakes candidates make is spending 25+ hours polishing low-priority features while neglecting documentation or testing.
Most candidates imagine reviewers deeply inspecting every line of code.
That is usually false.
Typical evaluation flow:
The reviewer checks:
Can this run easily?
Is setup frustrating?
Are instructions clear?
Does the project look organized?
Many submissions lose momentum here immediately.
The reviewer evaluates:
Folder structure
Naming quality
Dependency choices
Separation of concerns
Overall engineering maturity
They test:
Endpoint behavior
Validation handling
Authentication
Error responses
Edge cases
Most reviewers selectively inspect:
Controllers
Services
Database logic
Validation
Tests
They rarely read every file.
The reviewer asks:
Would I want this engineer on my team?
Does this code inspire confidence?
Would this person increase or reduce technical debt?
That final emotional confidence factor matters far more than candidates realize.
Candidates often try to impress reviewers with unnecessary complexity.
Examples:
Microservices for small projects
Excessive abstractions
Premature optimization
Unnecessary design patterns
Simple, maintainable architecture usually performs better.
This is extremely common.
Weak submissions fail to validate:
Input formats
Required fields
Authentication state
Duplicate records
File size limits
Request boundaries
Validation quality strongly affects reviewer trust.
Bad backend APIs often return:
Generic 500 errors
Stack traces
Inconsistent response structures
Strong APIs provide predictable, developer-friendly responses.
Some companies inspect commit history.
Bad signs include:
One massive commit
Poor commit naming
Broken commit states
Strong candidates use clean, incremental commits.
Reviewers intentionally test unexpected scenarios.
Examples:
Invalid authentication
Duplicate submissions
Empty data
Invalid pagination
Concurrency conflicts
Missing resources
Edge case handling is often what separates strong candidates from average ones.
Senior-level candidates explain decisions clearly.
Examples:
Why PostgreSQL instead of MongoDB
Why Redis caching was omitted
Why synchronous processing was acceptable
Why JWT was chosen over sessions
This demonstrates engineering judgment.
Reviewers appreciate immediately testable projects.
Include:
Sample users
Mock products
Seed scripts
Example API payloads
This improves reviewer experience significantly.
You do not need full production infrastructure, but strong candidates mention:
Logging strategy
Monitoring considerations
Rate limiting
Security hardening
CI/CD potential
Scalability concerns
Consistency matters heavily.
Strong APIs use standardized response formats.
Upload Resume
Import from Linkedin
{
"message": "Error"
}