I had a great first interview; I was surprised to talk to an engineer instead of someone non-technical. He was enthusiastic because my experience was a really great fit for their technology. The next step was to do a coding test at codesignal.com. I mentioned that I don't believe that these kinds of tests are artificial, and don't give a well-rounded picture of someone's strengths. The interviewer said that "velocity" was really important, but reassured me that my domain knowledge would be given some weight. I didn't bomb completely on the coding test but I didn't do that well. I spent a lot of time on something that wasn't running fast enough, which didn't make sense. After that I got a terse reply saying "we're not going any further, we expect developers to complete twice as many problems". I responded with a followup question but didn't get any response. This seemed pretty rude, after my initial positive interaction. I know that coding tests are widespread, but you can't extrapolate performance in an artificial situation to performance in a real-world situation. They may be good at finding people who can quickly jam out repetitive low-level code, but they aren't going to identify how well you can think at a higher level, and people like me who see software as a craft are not going to do well.