Skip to content
Flows
Hackathon Judge Report
QA30-60 minutes per project
0/5 steps0%

Step 1 of 5

Set up the rubric

Fix the criteria and standards before seeing any project.

Prompt capsule

Set up my judging rubric. I will paste the competition's criteria below. Produce: each criterion with its weight and a 1-10 scale anchored with concrete descriptions (what a 3, 6, and 9 look like - observable behaviors, not adjectives); the functionality-verification checklist applied to every project (core action works, data persists, no dead buttons on the main path); and the report template (scores, evidence, strengths, issues, potential). Lock it before judging starts. CRITERIA: [paste here]

Paste into Claude · Complete implementation prompt with explicit requirements

Expected after this step

An anchored, weighted rubric plus a universal verification checklist and template.

Should not happen

  • Scoring from the demo video alone
  • Halo effects from polished pitches masking dead apps
  • Vague feedback ('great job, needs polish')
  • Inconsistent standards between the first and last project judged

Verify before continuing

Do not move on until every check is true. The complete button stays locked until then.

Do not continue if…

  • !Scoring from the demo video alone
  • !Halo effects from polished pitches masking dead apps
  • !Vague feedback ('great job, needs polish')
  • !Inconsistent standards between the first and last project judged

If the AI messes this up

Use this when the AI fakes progress or breaks the feature. It forces a real fix.

The scale points are adjectives ('good', 'excellent'). Rewrite anchors as observable behaviors so two judges would score alike.

Your notes for this step