> Would you think doing this live in a screen sharing session adds more value?

In my experience, hugely yes. Above all else I really like that the time commitment is fixed on both sides - no homework for the candidate, and we're not asking them to invest any more time than we are.

Also doing things interactively gives a lot of leeway for adjusting and avoiding wasted time. If somebody's got one section basically solved, I might cut in and say "yeah that bit is great, let's call it finished and look at this other bit". If they're obviously having a lot of trouble, I might ask about their current work and maybe switch tasks if there's a better fit. Or if they're obviously coasting easily I might cut in with "how would you scale this?" questions that give more signal than watching them finish up the loose ends.

Another thing I like is that we can keep the task specification simple, like what you'd get from a PM, and it's up to the candidate whether they want to ask questions or jump in. I imagine that with take-home tasks you either need to give out pretty specific requirements, or else have people interpreting the task a variety of different ways.

> How would you prepare the candidate for this?

We explain at the beginning that the goal is write code for an hour and watch how they work, and there's no hard requirement for what needs to be finished by the end. And they're welcome to search the web, use AI, or anything else they'd typically do while working.

And I've only done a few dozen of these, but personally I've never seen anybody get particularly nervous. I think nerves are a bigger issue with HR style "pass all the tests within the time limit" tests, where the danger is that somebody can hit a wall and never get past it. That doesn't happen with my format, because if somebody is stuck I just give them hints until they're unstuck (since I get no signal from watching somebody scratch their head).