Hurricane Hackathon Judging Rubric
This Year's Prompt: 2030 and Beyond
What challenges, technologies, trends, opportunities do you imagine for the year 2030? How will the world be different? What are you excited about? What are you worried about?
Spend the next 24 hours diving deep into what you can't stop thinking about, but haven't given yourself permission to spend enough time on.
Build something that expresses your vision of the future — and show the rest of us why it matters.
Gate Check: Follows the Prompt
Did the team address the hackathon prompt?
Scored Categories
Score each category 1–5. Multiply by the weight to get the weighted score.
1. Compelling (Weight: ×4)
How creative, original, and engaging is the idea?
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Generic, derivative, or hard to care about |
| 2 | Familiar idea, modest twist |
| 3 | Solid concept with some original elements |
| 4 | Genuinely fresh angle, makes you lean in |
| 5 | Surprising, memorable, "I've never seen that before" |
2. Impact (Weight: ×6)
Magnitude of the problem solved and value created. Consider who benefits and how meaningfully — depth of value counts as much as breadth of audience.
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Niche curiosity, unclear who needs this |
| 2 | Solves a small problem for a small group |
| 3 | Useful for a clearly defined audience |
| 4 | Significant value — either broad real-world demand, or deep value to a clearly underserved group |
| 5 | Could meaningfully change how an industry, community, or process works — or be transformative for its users |
3. Technical Rigor & Quality (Weight: ×5)
Engineering thoughtfulness, working implementation, and technical difficulty. Includes feasibility — is this actually buildable and does it work?
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Doesn't work, or trivial implementation |
| 2 | Partially working; obvious shortcuts |
| 3 | Works as demoed; reasonable engineering choices |
| 4 | Solid, well-built; tackled real technical challenges |
| 5 | Impressive technical execution; novel or non-obvious solutions |
4. Execution & Communication (Weight: ×3)
Quality of the presentation, documentation, visible process, and team coordination.
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Disorganized; hard to follow; no documentation |
| 2 | Basic demo; minimal documentation |
| 3 | Clear presentation; adequate README and process notes |
| 4 | Polished demo; good documentation; process is visible |
| 5 | Excellent storytelling; thorough docs; team contribution is evident |
Total
| Category | Score | Weight | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compelling | ×4 | ||
| Impact | ×6 | ||
| Technical Rigor & Quality | ×5 | ||
| Execution & Communication | ×3 | ||
| TOTAL | / 90 | ||