I think your response will select a different kind of people that Kagi wanted do.
"I would tell them to write more about the UI/UX, do a mockup whatever." is effectively changing the take-home task from "write code", to "write spec, including mockup, get it approved, and then write code". This can be a valid skill, depending on position - but it also means that applicants waste their time on the writing documents that are not part of grading rubric.
And this brings us to a second part: "Emphasize that the people doing the evaluation looove TUIs..." - this is giving a really big hint. It would be a valid response _if the goal was to get this particular candidate_, say because unethical recruiter is getting paid for each candidate placed, and does not care about Kagi's own needs. But does Kagi (or anyone else, really?) want the kind of candidates that could not even parse out the simple doc? Because they were not subtle about loving TUIs in the requirements, mentioning them multiple times and giving examples.
So I am pretty sure that these kinds of strong hints would be against the interview rules, and there is no "fuckup" in this regard.
If I were to write those replies... I don't actually know their policy about how much help can they give to candidate over email.
If reviewing intermediate docs is too much, I'd have to refuse the candidate firmly: "Reviewing documents mid-assignment is against a spirit of this question. Please write the code using the best understanding of the assignment, and I am looking forward to receiving your submission."
If reviewing those docs is OK, I'd say something mildly encouraging - as the document as sent is not wrong, it's just incomplete. "This document contains no glaring defects"? "I can imagine a passing submission that would follow the plan outlined in this document"? "The results will depend on quality of implementation and how well you've followed the assignment, but so far I see no blockers"? "I cannot promise anything until I see the code, but that can potentially lead to passing assignment"?
Some of those would be better than "This is all very exciting. Thanks for keeping me updated" -- but looking at the candidate, would this make a difference? Judging by the tone of the post, and how he decided to proceed because "this is somewhat of a positive answer", even those harsher responses would end up the same way.
"I would tell them to write more about the UI/UX, do a mockup whatever." is effectively changing the take-home task from "write code", to "write spec, including mockup, get it approved, and then write code". This can be a valid skill, depending on position - but it also means that applicants waste their time on the writing documents that are not part of grading rubric.
And this brings us to a second part: "Emphasize that the people doing the evaluation looove TUIs..." - this is giving a really big hint. It would be a valid response _if the goal was to get this particular candidate_, say because unethical recruiter is getting paid for each candidate placed, and does not care about Kagi's own needs. But does Kagi (or anyone else, really?) want the kind of candidates that could not even parse out the simple doc? Because they were not subtle about loving TUIs in the requirements, mentioning them multiple times and giving examples.
So I am pretty sure that these kinds of strong hints would be against the interview rules, and there is no "fuckup" in this regard.
If I were to write those replies... I don't actually know their policy about how much help can they give to candidate over email.
If reviewing intermediate docs is too much, I'd have to refuse the candidate firmly: "Reviewing documents mid-assignment is against a spirit of this question. Please write the code using the best understanding of the assignment, and I am looking forward to receiving your submission."
If reviewing those docs is OK, I'd say something mildly encouraging - as the document as sent is not wrong, it's just incomplete. "This document contains no glaring defects"? "I can imagine a passing submission that would follow the plan outlined in this document"? "The results will depend on quality of implementation and how well you've followed the assignment, but so far I see no blockers"? "I cannot promise anything until I see the code, but that can potentially lead to passing assignment"?
Some of those would be better than "This is all very exciting. Thanks for keeping me updated" -- but looking at the candidate, would this make a difference? Judging by the tone of the post, and how he decided to proceed because "this is somewhat of a positive answer", even those harsher responses would end up the same way.