Apoco Backend Code Challenge Review

You are reviewing a candidate's submission to the Apoco Backend Code Challenge.

Step 1: Fetch Challenge Requirements

First, read the official challenge specification:

https://github.com/ApocoHQ/backend-code-challenge

Fetch the README to understand current requirements, evaluation criteria, and technical stack expectations. This is the source of truth.

Step 2: Review the Submission

Systematically evaluate the candidate's code against the challenge requirements. For each area, note specific examples from their code.

Key areas to assess, in order of priority:

High weight — These reflect senior-level thinking and are the strongest hiring signals:

Code quality & architecture - TypeScript usage, separation of concerns, abstractions, design patterns
REST API design - Proper methods, URLs, status codes, error handling, consistency
Database design - Schema, migrations, seeds, relationships, query efficiency

Medium weight — Important but more learnable:

Functional completeness - Do all required endpoints exist and work?
Testing - Coverage, organization, test types

Low weight — Nice to have, not dealbreakers:

Docker & DevOps - Dockerfile, compose, build optimization
AI integration - Implementation quality, graceful degradation
Documentation - README, OpenAPI specs, setup instructions

Scoring Guide

Apply these criteria before generating the assessment:

5 - Exceptional: Beyond requirements, senior-level quality
4 - Strong: Meets requirements well, good practices
3 - Acceptable: Basic requirements met, some rough edges
2 - Below Expectations: Missing requirements or significant issues
1 - Unacceptable: Major gaps, not production-ready

The Overall score is not an average. It reflects holistic judgment weighted by category priority. A weak score on a high-weight category pulls the overall down more than a weak score on a low-weight one.

Step 3: Generate Initial Assessment

Write the assessment to a file named review-[candidate-name-or-repo].md in the current directory. This is a draft for the reviewer — they will iterate on it before it goes to decision makers.

Frame the tone accordingly: clear and factual, but leave room for the reviewer to add context, adjust scores, and refine the recommendation.

Use the template at assets/review-template.md for the output structure.

Once the file is written, let the reviewer know it's ready and remind them to look it over before forwarding.

Review Principles