RUBRIC
Each category is worth 20 points. Total score out of 100, with an optional +5 bonus. Design with care, not speed.
RELEVANCE TO STUDENT BARRIERS
Clear connection to real community college challenges
Barrier is clearly defined with specific, empathetic detail. The team demonstrates deep understanding of how this barrier affects real students' daily lives and connects it directly to the chosen track.
Barrier is well-identified and explained. The team shows solid understanding with some supporting context and a clear link to community college students.
Barrier is stated but explanation is surface-level. Limited evidence of research or empathy for the student experience.
Barrier is vague, generic, or not clearly connected to the track. Little evidence of understanding the student perspective.
AI USE (PLAYLAB & ANYTHING OR V0)
Intentional, appropriate, and well-explained
AI tools are used intentionally and creatively. Playlab and the prototype platform work together seamlessly. The team clearly explains how and why each tool was chosen.
AI tools are used appropriately with a logical connection between Playlab and the prototype. Explanation of tool choices is solid.
AI tools are present but their use feels surface-level or disconnected. The connection between tools is unclear or underdeveloped.
AI tools are barely used or misused. No clear explanation of why the tools were chosen or how they serve the student.
PROTOTYPE & USER EXPERIENCE
Clear flow and purpose using vibe coding
Prototype is functional and clearly demonstrates the core idea. The user experience is intuitive, student-centered, and shows thoughtful design decisions via vibe coding.
Prototype shows the key concept effectively with a clear user flow. Some rough edges but the idea and purpose come through.
Prototype is partially built or only shows one tool. The user experience is confusing or the purpose is unclear.
No prototype shown, or the demo does not meaningfully represent the proposed solution. No clear user flow.
EQUITY, ETHICS & REALISM
Considers inclusion, boundaries, and feasibility
Thoughtful, nuanced equity analysis. The team clearly articulates who benefits, what the tool cannot replace (e.g., counselors, advisors), and identifies meaningful risks, limitations, and feasibility constraints.
Solid equity and ethics reflection. Considers inclusion, identifies boundaries of the tool, and acknowledges at least one realistic limitation.
Some ethical awareness shown but responses are generic. May miss key considerations around inclusion, boundaries, or feasibility.
Little to no consideration of equity, ethics, or realism. Limitations and risks are not addressed.
COMMUNICATION & PITCH
Clear, engaging, and accessible
Pitch is compelling, well-structured, and delivered with clarity. The team communicates the problem and solution in a way anyone could understand. Human, authentic, and jargon-free.
Pitch is clear and covers all key points. Delivery is confident, engaging, and mostly jargon-free.
Pitch covers the basics but may be disorganized, overly technical, or exceed time. Key points are present but delivery needs polish.
Pitch is unclear, missing key elements, or heavily reliant on jargon. Difficult to follow.
BONUS
REMEMBER
Empathy for real student lives
Responsible, realistic AI use
Clear thinking over fancy tech
This hackathon is about designing with care, not coding the fastest.