Back to .md Directory
proj3rubric
Scores a team project against 22 rubric criteria, each with evidence links and self-assessment values.
ai
View sourceWhat this file does
Scores a team project against 22 rubric criteria, each with evidence links and self-assessment values.
When to use it
- Evaluating your own team project against a standard rubric
- Preparing evidence for a course or client deliverable review
- Auditing your project's documentation, testing, and workflow completeness
Assumes this stack
GitHubFlake8CodeCovGitHub Actions
| Score | Notes | Evidence | Self-Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| .5 | short release cycles | Releases | .5 |
| .5 | workload is spread over the whole team (so one team member is often Xtimes more productive than the others... | Work has been divided equally among all team members. <br/>Github Commits Stats | .5 |
| .5 | Docs: why: docs tell a story, motivate the whole thing, deliver a punchline that makes you want to rush out and use the thing | 1. Story Video <br> 2. Use Case Document <br> 3. Demo Link<br> | .5 |
| .5 | the files CONTRIBUTING.md lists coding standards and lots of tips on how to extend the system without screwing things up | CONTRIBUTING.md | .5 |
| .5 | Docs: doco generated , format not ugly | Docs | .5 |
| .5 | evidence that the whole team is using the same tools (e.g. config files in the repo, updated by lots of different people) | 1. All the members of the team have set up environments setup locally. <br> 2. All used the same IDE, packages and tech stack to build the project. <br> 3. Everyone has installed the required libraries and has been using it.<br>Configuration | .5 |
| .5 | evidence that the members of the team are working across multiple places in the code base | 1. We assign issues in Github and start working on the required part of the project. <br>2. The commit history of different members shows this. <br> Github Commits | .5 |
| 1 | Docs: what: point descriptions of each class/function (in isolation) | Every method used in the files are properly documented.<br>Function Documentation | 1 |
| .5 | Number of commits: by different people | Excluding merges, 5 authors have pushed 96 commits to Group10StableBranch and 112 commits to all branches. On Group10StableBranch, 60 files have changed and there have been 3,113 additions and 1,279 deletions.<br>Github Commits | .5 |
| 1 | issues are being closed | Closed 22 issues. <br> An open issue is closed only after verified by one of the members.<br>Closed Issues | 1 |
| .5 | issues are discussed before they are closed | After a team member fix the issue, a PR is raised, and the code is reviewed by one of the team members. If any issue is observed, it is communicated through comments in the issue. Once good to be closed, developer is tagged in order to notify.<br>Issues | .5 |
| .5 | Use of syntax checkers. | Used Flake8 to check syntax Github YAML Config | .5 |
| 1 | Issues reports: there are many | Every developer uses the application frequently. Initially there are quite a number of issues. Whenever an issue is seen, it is reported immediately and issue will be created in issues section and assigned to one who has recently worked in those areas of code where bug is seen. Issues | 1 |
| .5 | Use of code formatters. | Used Flake8 tool for code formatting <br> Github YAML Config | .5 |
| .5 | Use of style checkers | Used Flake8 tool for style checking <br> Github YAML Config | .5 |
| .5 | Docs: short video, animated, hosted on your repo. That convinces people why they want to work on your code. | Animated Video, Demo | .5 |
| .5 | test cases exist | Test Cases | .5 |
| .5 | Use of code coverage | Used CodeCov tool Github YAML Config | .5 |
| .5 | other automated analysis tools | Used automated tools like Github Workflow/Actions for CI/CD pipeline Github YAML Config | .5 |
| .5 | test cases:.a large proportion of the issues related to handling failing cases. | We ensured that every part of the code works correctly by using test suite. But Whenever a test case is failed an issue is added in the issues section <br> Resolution of Failed Tests | .5 |
| .5 | test cases are routinely executed | Github actions are used. After every commit to main branch, automated scripts are run for test cases and a badge is shown in the main project folder and README to indicate if build is successful Github Action Flow | .5 |
| 1 | Documentation describing how this version improves on the older version | Version Compare Doc , Readme - Future Roadmap | 1 |
| 3 | This version is a little(1), some(2), much(3) improved on the last version. | Tutor's assessment. | |
| 16 | Total |
What's inside
22 rows, each with Score, Notes, Evidence links, and Self-Assessment column
Change this for your project
- Replace
nehajaideep/WolfTrack2.0with your own repository URL - Replace
nehajaideep/WolfTrack3.0with your own repository URL - Replace
Group10StableBranchwith your own branch name
Where it goes
Keep it in your repository where the agent or team that needs it will read it.
Worth borrowing
- Links specific evidence (commits, issues, config files) to each rubric criterion
- Self-assessment column lets team score themselves before external review
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