Back to .md Directory
proj2rubric
Scores a project against a 29-criterion rubric with point values and evidence links for each assessment item.
ai rag
View sourceWhat this file does
Scores a project against a 29-criterion rubric with point values and evidence links for each assessment item.
When to use it
- Evaluating your own project against a standard grading rubric
- Preparing a project submission that must demonstrate specific criteria
- Reviewing a peer project using a predefined checklist
| Notes | Assessment (Total : 87 ) | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Video1 | 3 | A video showing the functionality of the previous project is included in README.md |
| Video2 | 3 | A vidoe of the updated and scaled app with the new functionalities is included in README.md |
| Bonus: Xfold improvement | 3 | Highlighted in README.md |
| Docs: what: point descriptions of each class/function (in isolation) | 3 | Mentioned in respective README.md inside the respective folders |
| Use of style checkers | 3 | Pylint used |
| Use of code formatters. | 3 | Pylint used |
| Use of syntax checkers. | 3 | Pylint used |
| Use of code coverage | 3 | Coverage badge is present in README |
| Other automated analysis tools | 3 | Used github actions |
| Workload is spread over the whole team (one team member is often Xtimes more productive than the others... but nevertheless, here is a track record that everyone is contributing a lot) | 3 | Everyone has committed and contributed equally. Visible in Insights -> Contributors |
| Number of commits | 3 | There were a lot of commits Present in Insights -> Contributors |
| Number of commits: by different people | 3 | Everyone has committed in different areas. Visible in Insights -> Contributors |
| Issues reports: there are many | 3 | Issues were raised and resolved. Visible in Issues |
| Issues are being closed | 3 | A lot of issues were opened, resolved and closed Visible in Issues |
| DOI badge: exists | 3 | Visible in GitHub Repository |
| Docs: doco generated, format not ugly | 3 | Documentation is present with all the blings! GitHub Repository README.md |
| Docs: how: for common use cases X,Y,Z mini-tutorials showing worked examples on how to do X,Y,Z | 0 | No such examples or tutorials found |
| Docs: why: docs tell a story, motivate the whole thing, deliver a punchline that makes you want to rush out and use the thing | 3 | Documentation includes the story, punchline and would motivate anyone to rush out and use the thing |
| Docs: short video, animated, hosted on your repo. That convinces people why they want to work on your code. | 3 | Animation video present in GitHub Repository README.md |
| Use of version control tools | 3 | GitHub was used by the team |
| Test cases exist | 3 | Test cases are present in tests folder. see here |
| Test cases are routinely executed | 3 | Test cases are executed |
| The files CONTRIBUTING.md lists coding standards and lots of tips on how to extend the system without screwing things up | 3 | File is present and clear instructions are available |
| Issues are discussed before they are closed | 3 | Issues were discussed before closing |
| Chat channel: exists | 3 | Slack channel exists See here |
| Test cases: a large proportion of the issues related to handling failing cases. | 0 | No issues found |
| Evidence that the whole team is using the same tools: everyone can get to all tools and files | 3 | Everyone has contributed to different files |
| Evidence that the whole team is using the same tools (e.g. config files in the repo, updated by lots of different people) | 3 | |
| Evidence that the whole team is using the same tools (e.g. tutor can ask anyone to share screen, they demonstrate the system running on their computer) | 3 | |
| Evidence that the members of the team are working across multiple places in the code base | 3 | Team members have been found contributing in different area |
| Short release cycles | 3 | Regular commits and releases have been made |
.png){kind=link}
What's inside
29 rows in a table, each with a criterion name, point value, and evidence link.
Change this for your project
- Replace
kunalshah03/PackReview_Part2with your repository path in all evidence URLs - Replace
Data/Screenshot%20(37).pngwith your own chat channel screenshot path - Replace
testsfolder reference with your own test directory name
Where it goes
Keep it in your repository where the agent or team that needs it will read it.
Worth borrowing
- Linking each criterion directly to concrete evidence in the repo
- Using a table format for transparent, auditable scoring
Related Documents
RUBRIC.md
AICA PRD Quality Rubric
Defines a 10-dimension scoring rubric (0-5 each) to evaluate and create PRDs, with a target score of 36+ for agent-driven implementation.
aiagentllm
0
4
lucasblimaRUBRIC.md
Judging Rubric
Defines a 100-point scoring rubric for an AI-for-social-good hackathon, covering five criteria with detailed score bands and tie-breaking rules.
aievalworkflow
0
3
rudra496RUBRIC.md
Liscribe v2 — Rubric of Success
Defines the complete UI specification, success criteria, and non-negotiable principles for a macOS transcription app with three independent workflows.
airagworkflow
0
3
LenniottRUBRIC.md
QualRubric
Defines a qualitative rubric for PhD qualifying exam presentations, focusing on context, organization, and knowledge demonstration rather than numerical scoring.
aieval
0
3
adsarwate