Judging Rubric

AI for Social Good Hackathon – SUST 2026

Scoring Overview

Projects are evaluated by a panel of judges across five criteria, totalling 100 points.

Criterion	Weight	Description
Social Impact & Relevance	25 pts	Real-world problem, clear target beneficiary
Z.ai Integration Quality	25 pts	Meaningful, non-superficial use of Z.ai
Technical Execution	20 pts	Working demo, code quality, reliability
User Experience & Clarity	15 pts	Usability, simplicity, clarity for non-technical users
Demo & Communication	15 pts	Team presentation, explanation, confidence

Maximum total: 100 points

Score Range	Description
21–25	Problem is clearly defined, meaningful, and directly impacts a real community. Target users and expected benefit are compelling.
16–20	Good problem choice with adequate justification. Impact is plausible but not fully articulated.
11–15	Problem is generic or lacks specificity. Social impact is vague.
6–10	Weak problem framing. Limited relevance to social good.
0–5	No clear social purpose or the use case is trivial/irrelevant.

Score Range	Description
21–25	Z.ai is central to the solution. Integration is non-trivial, contextually appropriate, and clearly enhances the user experience.
16–20	Z.ai is used meaningfully and contributes to the solution, though not central.
11–15	Z.ai is included but the integration feels superficial or bolted on.
6–10	Minimal or unclear Z.ai usage. Documentation of usage is lacking.
0–5	Z.ai is absent or the integration is non-functional.

Score Range	Description
17–20	Project runs reliably. Code is organized and well-documented. Architecture suits the problem and 1-day scope.
12–16	Project mostly works. Minor bugs or incomplete features, but core functionality is demonstrated.
7–11	Some functionality present but significant issues or missing features.
3–6	Barely functional. Major gaps in implementation.
0–2	Non-functional or empty repository.

Score Range	Description
13–15	Intuitive, clean interface or workflow. A non-technical user could understand and use the product.
9–12	Usable with minor rough edges. User flow is mostly clear.
5–8	Functional but confusing or difficult to navigate.
1–4	Poor UX; requires significant explanation to operate.
0	No user-facing interface or experience considered.

Score Range	Description
13–15	Clear, concise, and confident presentation. Demo shows real functionality. Team answers questions well.
9–12	Good presentation with minor clarity issues. Demo covers the core features.
5–8	Partial demo or unclear explanation. Some key features not demonstrated.
1–4	Weak or disorganized presentation. Demo does not prove functionality.
0	No presentation or demo.

If two or more teams have equal total scores:

Judges score independently before any group discussion.
Judges must declare conflicts of interest with any team before scoring.
Judges should provide at least one line of written feedback per team.
Scores are final once submitted to the scoring sheet.
Judges must not share individual scores with participants before the official announcement.

See judging/judge-evaluation-sheet.md for the per-team scoring form judges will use.