I tend to waffle between I-don't-want-to-seem-like-I-have-a-big-ego and this-was-a-week-of-my-life-now-pay-me attitudes on this.
However in this circumstance, you're doing WAY more work than the original prompt was given. On top of that, it seems really strange to me that they would request edits to a take-home project. Isn't the whole idea of a take-home to assess how the interviewee would think their way through a typical problem and then assess their value based on their implementation strategy rather than nitpick about dead code? I honestly am confused by this. And then to end it with a TL;DR as a rejection letter seems way too colloquial for this project. You deserve better for the work you did.
I've seen something like this done before and my mind was blown. I'm curious if anyone on Dev (hiring or being hired) has any anecdotal experience for this?
Here's my response to their TL;DR
I wrote our hiring tech test. We spec it at a day, but for a junior position (dependent on resume) we'll either extend to 3 days or just skip the test all together.
When I get the answers, I don't even bother to read the code. Does it compile? Does it have better than nonexistent tests? Cool.
I do look for the commit history (the reason for the requirement of uploading to a public git repo to share it with us...). I'm looking at two things; commit messages & thought pattern approaching the problem.
If an applicant tried to bill me us for the day's effort, I'd have a good laugh & legal would write a stern letter back.
While we spec it at a day, a decent senior can fulfill it in an hour and change. If you're applying for a senior position & it took you 3 days, you might be lucky to get a low ball offer.
While I don't condone billing your interview at all, OP's experience still seems over-the-top for an interview, does it not? I can understand being frustrated with aspects of the feedback that could have easily been resolved in the first code reviews of full employment.
Don't get me wrong, I agree, OP went well above & beyond.
Even so, billing for that would get a response from legal, rather than HR (or me).
The lesson here, is that OP should have stopped sooner. Particularly on the first reply from them that suggested improvements.
I've had 1 person that I've given feedback to (because the project didn't compile!) - they were subsequently hired (against my advice). I had to fire them a week later.
If there is need for ANY feedback loop in the interview process that isn't face-to-face, it's time for both parties to walk away.
Why would legal send a letter?
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.