ML Case-study Interview Question: Leveraging LLMs for Real-Time Code Completion via Prompting and Fine-Tuning.
Browse all the ML Case-Studies here.
Case-Study question
A major software firm aims to leverage an internal large language model to offer real-time code generation for developers. They want an integrated tool inside their coding environment that analyzes partially written code and suggests completions in various programming languages, reducing context switches and boosting productivity. Engineers must create a solution that scales to millions of users, consistently delivers relevant suggestions, and ensures tight integration with existing developer workflows. How would you design, implement, and refine this system to produce reliable coding suggestions while handling evolving model capabilities?
Detailed Solution
Overview
The firm relies on a large language model trained on billions of lines of code. The system reads the user’s partially written code and predicts the next lines. Engineers design a prompt that includes file context, filename paths, and any relevant fragments from open files in the coding environment. These references guide the model toward accurate completion. The solution requires prompt crafting, fine tuning, and continuous monitoring.
Prompt Crafting
Developers feed the partial code snippet, filename path, and adjacent file content into the model. The model completes this pseudo-document one token at a time. The code editor plugin collects context from open files and includes them in the prompt. This helps the model produce completions specific to the user’s current project. Prompt structure is refined to discourage it from generating completions in the wrong language and to encourage domain-specific suggestions.
Fine Tuning
Engineers periodically retrain or fine tune the model on curated data to adapt it to new libraries or patterns. They monitor acceptance rates of suggestions. Each time users accept or reject code completions, that data is recorded and used to strengthen the model’s domain knowledge. When they see frequent rejections for particular coding patterns, they adjust hyperparameters or retrain on additional code samples that reflect the correct usage.
Integration with the Development Environment
A lightweight plugin inside the integrated development environment intercepts keystrokes and manages context updates. If a user has multiple files open, the plugin scans for similar functions, class names, or variable declarations. That text is appended to the prompt so the model can reuse consistent naming and logic. Engineers also integrate an optional chat-based interface for clarifications.
Handling Model Updates
When the large language model provider releases new versions, the team evaluates them on internal benchmarks. They measure how often suggestions are retained or edited. They also check for language detection errors. If the model tends to generate suggestions for the wrong language, they prepend the correct language specification and confirm the filename path is accurate. Team members keep a fallback mechanism in case newly released model versions degrade performance in certain edge cases.
Example Code Snippet
A Python-based plugin could perform an API call to the model whenever the developer pauses typing:
def get_code_completion(prompt, model_api, max_tokens=150):
response = model_api.generate(
prompt=prompt,
temperature=0.2,
max_tokens=max_tokens
)
return response
This function receives a crafted prompt containing partial code plus relevant file paths and content from the user’s environment. The temperature parameter is tuned to balance creativity and precision, and max_tokens limits the length of the returned suggestion.
Continuous Improvement
Engineers analyze logs to see which suggestions get accepted. They filter them by language, framework, and file type. Repeated patterns of rejections prompt further prompt engineering or additional fine tuning. They might insert disclaimers in the prompt text to stop the model from proposing overly long or repetitive suggestions. As new coding languages become popular, more training data is added.
Follow-up Question 1
How do you measure the effectiveness of the suggestions and decide whether your approach is improving user productivity?
A robust proxy metric is the user’s acceptance rate of generated suggestions. Track how many characters of the model’s suggestions remain unmodified and compare against total characters typed. A rising acceptance rate suggests improved alignment with user needs. Compare session durations with or without the tool. Perform controlled experiments with subsets of developers who receive different variants of the prompt or fine tuning. A reduction in time spent on boilerplate or repetitive code indicates success.
Follow-up Question 2
How do you address instances where the model returns incorrect or incomplete code that may mislead developers?
Gather feedback signals whenever a user deletes or overrides code. Categorize those signals by error types (syntax errors, wrong library calls, or incorrect logic). Create a smaller training set focusing on examples of these errors. Retrain or fine tune. Implement gating logic in the IDE plugin that prevents incomplete code from auto-inserting if syntax or references look incorrect. In chat interfaces, provide guidance to help users refine prompts when code is incomplete.
Follow-up Question 3
How would you control for language mismatches when the user works on multiple files with different programming languages?
Include in the prompt a line specifying the file’s programming language based on its extension or recognized syntax. Mention the filename or path as an additional hint. If the model tends to mix languages, add explicit in-prompt signals, such as “The code below is in language X.” Keep a language-detection component that compares the generated snippet against known syntax patterns. If it does not match the target language’s common syntax, the system rejects or reruns the query.
Follow-up Question 4
If a new framework or library becomes popular, how do you adapt the model or the prompts without a full retraining process?
Perform targeted fine tuning with domain-specific examples, focusing on calls to that new framework’s APIs. Add specialized code snippets in the prompt to steer the model toward desired patterns. Observe acceptance and rejection rates for the new framework, and if the tool suggests obsolete methods, gather fresh examples from the official documentation and incorporate them into the fine tuning. This incremental approach avoids a complete retraining from scratch yet keeps the model current.
Follow-up Question 5
How do you handle security and licensing concerns when your system generates code that might originate from open-source repositories with unclear licenses?
Maintain a filter to avoid producing exact copies of rarely used code found in public repositories. Track usage patterns for potential license conflicts. Include a compliance module that checks the suggested snippet’s similarity to known open-source code. If it exceeds a threshold, the system warns the user. Where possible, rely on fine tuning with your internal codebase or official library examples that have clear permissions, reducing risk of generating unlicensed snippets.
Follow-up Question 6
How would you test and debug the model’s performance when it fails silently or fails in a subtle way, like returning code that seems correct but has hidden flaws?
Set up an internal test harness containing sample tasks with known expected outputs. Inject telemetry at each stage of the process so that if the model’s output deviates, engineers can trace the prompt and the response. Maintain robust integration tests that compile or run the generated code. If a suggestion compiles successfully but yields runtime errors, record these incidents. Next, compare them with previously working suggestions to isolate factors that might have degraded the model’s accuracy.