Presentation Rubric

Clarity & Communication — 6 Points

Evaluate how effectively the team communicates the project, including structure, clarity, conciseness, delivery, and responses during Q&A.

• 6 Points — Excellent: The presentation is clear, well-structured, concise, and easy to follow. The team explains the project’s purpose, application architecture, key technical choices, and demonstrated work logically and confidently. Delivery is natural rather than dependent on reading a prepared script. Responses to Q&A are clear, focused, and demonstrate strong understanding of the project.

• 4 Points — Good: The presentation is generally clear and understandable, but some explanations may be vague, rushed, overly detailed, or somewhat disorganized. Presenters may rely noticeably on written text or notes. Q&A responses show reasonable understanding but may be incomplete or imprecise.

• 2 Points — Limited: The presentation is frequently difficult to follow, poorly organized, overly dependent on reading a script, or unclear about important aspects of the project. Q&A responses show limited understanding or difficulty explaining the team’s own technical work.

• 0 Points — Inadequate: The presentation provides little meaningful explanation of the project or technical work, or the team is unable to communicate the project sufficiently for evaluation.

Technical Progress & Demonstration — 10 Points

Evaluate whether the team clearly demonstrates the core web development requirements and shows that the major parts of the application work together as a coherent full-stack system.

Use the following checklist as a guide when evaluating the evidence presented:

Core Technical Evidence

• Frontend Implementation: A functional frontend built with React or Next.js using TypeScript, with Tailwind CSS, a component library, and responsive design evident in the demonstrated interface.

• Backend / Server Implementation: A functioning backend or server-side implementation using either Next.js full-stack or Express.js, with meaningful application logic and data access demonstrated or clearly explained.

• Frontend–Backend Integration: Clear evidence that the frontend and backend/server components work together through meaningful data flow, such as data retrieval, form submission, mutations, state updates, or other end-to-end interactions.

• Relational Data Persistence: SQLite or PostgreSQL is used meaningfully for persistent application data, with relevant queries, updates, relationships, or other database-backed functionality demonstrated.

• Cloud Storage Integration: File upload, retrieval, or related file-handling functionality is integrated with a cloud storage service and meaningfully connected to the application’s workflow or data model.

The checklist is intended to guide evaluation; the score should reflect the overall quality, completeness, integration, and clarity of the demonstrated technical work, rather than being determined mechanically by the number of boxes checked.

• 10 Points — Excellent: All core requirements are clearly demonstrated and well integrated. The application appears functional and coherent, and the team provides technically sound evidence that the frontend, backend/server logic, relational database, and cloud storage work together effectively. The presentation includes an effective live demonstration of meaningful application functionality, supplemented by recorded material where appropriate.

• 7 Points — Good: Most core requirements are clearly demonstrated and the application is substantially functional, but one area may be incomplete, weakly demonstrated, insufficiently explained, or not fully integrated.

• 4 Points — Limited: Several core requirements are incomplete, missing, only superficially demonstrated, or poorly integrated. The application shows meaningful progress but remains significantly behind the expected presentation-stage milestone.

• 2 Points — Minimal: Only limited evidence of a functioning full-stack application is demonstrated. Major core requirements are missing, non-functional, or too unclear to evaluate meaningfully.

• 0 Points — Inadequate: Almost no meaningful implementation of the core technical requirements is demonstrated.

Advanced Features & Completion Plan — 4 Points

Evaluate how clearly the team presents at least two advanced features and, where work remains incomplete, whether there is a credible path to completion by the final project deadline.

• 4 Points — Excellent: At least two advanced features are clearly presented with a strong explanation of their purpose, design, and relationship to the overall application. Implemented features are demonstrated effectively. Any unfinished features are supported by a concrete and feasible completion plan.

• 2 Points — Good / Partial: Advanced features are identified, but their implementation, explanation, integration, supporting evidence, or completion plan is incomplete or lacks sufficient clarity.

• 1 Point — Limited: Advanced features are mentioned with minimal explanation, weak evidence, or an unrealistic or generic completion plan.

• 0 Points — Inadequate: No meaningful advanced features or completion plan are presented.