4-problem sprint
Your strongest round. Three problems fully clear and the hard one passes 9 of 10, missing only a single-node self-dependency case.
Much better distributed: 5, 9, 13 and 27 minutes with 12 left over at the end. You gave the hard problem a real budget without letting it consume the round, and you finished with time to re-read.
The cycle check from last round's feedback is present and working. Empty inputs are handled everywhere. The one remaining gap is a task that lists itself as its own prerequisite.
This is now the only dimension not improving, and it is the third round running. Naming is better here — ready, order, current — but you are still not extracting repeated logic, and there are no comments at the points where you made a non-obvious choice.
This is what a well-paced round looks like: 5, 9, 13 and 27 minutes, submitting with 12 to spare. Compare that to round 1, where a single medium problem took 31 minutes. The pacing lesson has landed. Code quality has not moved across three rounds, and at this point it is the thing holding your overall score down rather than your problem-solving.
Clean and immediate, as in both previous rounds.
Nothing further here.
All 9 hidden tests passed, including the stable-ordering requirement for ties, which is the part most people miss.
You read the tie-breaking rule carefully and implemented it deliberately. That is exactly the brief-reading habit that cost you marks in round 2.
All 8 hidden tests passed, including non-square grids and a single-row grid.
The boundary tracking is correct. A comment on why the row and column bounds move when they do would help a reader, and would help you if you saw this again in six months.
9 of 10 hidden tests passed. The cycle detection you added after the last round works, and the naming is a clear improvement.
One test fails: a task that lists itself as its own prerequisite. Its in-degree never reaches zero, so it is silently dropped rather than reported as a cycle.
Your length comparison already catches this — the issue is that a self-edge is a cycle of one and worth handling explicitly. On code quality: the in-degree bookkeeping appears twice and would read better extracted.