

Updated by Palantir candidates

Forward Deployed Infrastructure Engineer Interview Experience
In the learning round they taught me one of their products from scratch, then kept adding constraints. They expected me to reason through it like I was already on the team.
Interview process
I had an intro fit call, then a LeetCode-style technical screen, then a 3-hour virtual onsite with three back-to-back rounds: learning, decomposition, and Python debugging. The biggest thing about the onsite was that two of the three rounds were super verbal, and they kept adding follow-up questions right after I answered. It was not the kind of loop where you just solve something once and move on. I walked out thinking I had done pretty well, including the last debugging round. Then I heard back a week later that I was rejected, which honestly confused me because the loop had felt pretty solid from my side.
- Recruiter screen
- Phone interview
- Technical interview
- Final round
Interview rounds
6 questions across 5 roundsRecruiter screen
1 questionOverview
I never really talked to a pure recruiter here. My first call was with a tech lead, and it felt like an engineer-driven fit screen for the gov side.
Question types asked
Specific questions asked
Walk me through your background.
Why are you suited for this government-facing role?
What I got from this call was that they liked people who already worked with or for the gov.
Phone interview
1 questionOverview
The phone screen was a pretty standard LeetCode-style technical round, but when I finished early the interviewer immediately layered on an extra twist.
Question types asked
Specific questions asked
Solve a repeated substring LeetCode Medium problem.
Now can you decode the result back into the original input?
I solved the repeated substring problem cleanly, and because I finished a little early she added another condition where I had to translate the produced output back into the input. I treated it like a normal coding screen, talked through my logic, then handled the reverse-translation extension too. I walked out feeling like that one went pretty well.
Technical interview (1)
1 questionOverview
The first onsite round was a learning round where they taught me Apollo fundamentals on the spot and then started stress-testing how I reasoned with new constraints.
Question types asked
Specific questions asked
Based on these Apollo deployment fundamentals, how would you handle a disconnected child that can only receive 20% of the parent's information per child?
How would release channels and recalls affect that design?
What happens to the upgrade path if you skip versions?
How do you think about dependency compatibility if skipping versions is not always safe?
I first learned their Apollo setup, like services across environments, release channels deciding eligible versions, and recalls overriding approval when a version is unsafe. For the disconnected child, I proposed sending a child-specific snapshot of needed production versions, artifacts, and metadata, while prioritizing recalls. If releases outpaced transfer limits, I suggested skipping intermediate versions to save space. He agreed with the space-saving logic, then pushed hard on upgrade-path safety and dependency compatibility, since skipping versions can break things, so I had to defend when that shortcut would and would not be safe.
Technical interview (2)
1 questionOverview
The decomposition round was fully verbal and very back-and-forth. It felt open-ended, but the interviewer seemed to care a lot about whether I stayed anchored on the real user need instead of jumping to a shallow metric.
Question types asked
Specific questions asked
How would you seed the initial data?
How would you account for the same restaurant being quiet at one time and loud at another?
How would you handle weak or conflicting evidence?
I started by proposing seeding data with hired observers, then layering in diner feedback, restaurant-submitted reports, and opt-in sound readings. I kept the source attached because a restaurant reporting on itself is not independent evidence. I modeled observations by visit time, so Tuesday vs. Friday evening could lead to very different comfort estimates. I also wanted recent comparable third-party reports, visible sample size, and a way to explicitly say when evidence was insufficient. He seemed to like that I focused on conversation comfort, not just averaging decibels.
Final round
2 questionsOverview
The last round was hands-on Python debugging in an existing codebase. I had to inspect multiple files, understand the graph setup quickly, fix the bug, and then extend the logic.
Specific questions asked
A reachable town is being reported as unreachable in this road-network codebase. Find and fix the bug.
They gave me multiple Python files, a graph diagram, JSON road records, and tests. The scenario was a mayor analyzing a road network where towns were vertices and roads were bidirectional weighted edges. I traced the issue to the code only storing roads in one direction, so I fixed it by adding the reverse connection for every road.
Now return the travel time of any valid path, not necessarily the shortest one.
How do you distinguish a failed branch from a successful path with total cost 0?
I adapted the recursive DFS so that as a successful path unwound, it added each road's travel time. I made the destination return 0, and a failed branch return None, because 0 itself can be a valid successful result. That distinction was the key part of the extension.
Interview tips
Mocking was the biggest thing for me. ChatGPT voice mode actually helped a lot because I could paste in the role description or some vague prompt and just keep talking through it while it pushed back. I also had it generate fake HackerRank-style setups so I could practice debugging inside something that felt closer to Palantir instead of only doing clean LeetCode problems. While doing LeetCode, I made myself explain everything out loud and answer follow-ups while coding, because you really do not want to go quiet in these interviews. If you can, get a friend to do decomposition and learning mocks with you too, since those rounds are basically live reasoning drills.
Company culture
They seemed to care a lot about government-adjacent background for this role, and having a clearance definitely looked like a plus. The whole thing felt very engineer-run to me. After the rejection, they would not give any detailed feedback. Still, they did tell me I could apply again in half a year, so it did not come across like I had bombed it or anything permanent like that.
Get full access with a membership, or share your experience to try it free.
More Palantir interview experiences

“You can’t treat coding and communication as separate skills here. Even after my code was right, they asked why I chose that approach and how I’d explain the trade-off to someone non-technical.”

“The process was well organized and the interviewers were collaborative. I did well when thinking aloud and adapting to new information. I could have managed time better during the unfamiliar-codebase round.”
See all 5 Palantir Forward Deployed Engineer interview experiences →