Proposal Rubric

This rubric is used to assess the project proposal submitted at the beginning of Week 2 (draft) and Thursday of Week 2 (final).

Point Scale

Score	Description
4	Exceeds expectations. Professional quality. No meaningful improvements needed.
3	Meets expectations. Solid work with minor issues.
2	Partially meets expectations. Acceptable but with notable weaknesses.
1	Below expectations. Significant problems, but evidence of effort.
0	Missing or fundamentally inadequate.

LLM assistance is permitted and expected for proposal generation. Therefore, standards are high. A well-prompted LLM should produce excellent proposals; your job is to prompt effectively, review critically, and refine the output.

Concision is valued. Verbose, bloated, or padded proposals will be penalized. Say what needs to be said clearly and stop.

Criteria

1. Coherence of Theme

Does the overarching theme unify the modules into a coherent system?

Score	Description
4	Theme is compelling, original, and naturally connects all modules. The system tells a clear story. Each module's role in the whole is obvious.
3	Theme is clear and connects modules well. Minor stretches in how some modules fit.
2	Theme exists but feels forced. Some modules seem disconnected from the overarching concept.
1	Theme is weak or arbitrary. Modules feel like separate assignments with a superficial label.
0	No coherent theme. Modules are unrelated.

2. Feasibility and Course Synchronization

Is the proposal achievable within the course timeline? Do module prerequisites align with when content is taught?

Score	Description
4	Feasibility study is complete and accurate. All modules are scheduled after their prerequisite content is covered. Scope is realistic for a pair of students within each time window.
3	Feasibility is mostly sound. Minor timing concerns or slightly ambitious scope for one or two modules.
2	Feasibility issues present. Some modules scheduled before content is covered, or scope is questionable for multiple modules.
1	Significant feasibility problems. Multiple synchronization errors or unrealistic scope throughout.
0	No feasibility study, or proposal is clearly impossible.

3. Scope Appropriateness

Is each module appropriately scoped—neither too ambitious nor too trivial?

Score	Description
4	All modules are well-scoped. Each represents meaningful work achievable in the allotted time. None are padding; none are overwhelming.
3	Scope is generally appropriate. One or two modules may be slightly over- or under-scoped.
2	Scope issues present. Several modules feel too trivial or too ambitious.
1	Scope is poorly judged throughout. Most modules are either padding or unrealistic.
0	Scope is not addressed or is completely unreasonable.

4. Clarity and Concision

Is the proposal clear, precise, and free of unnecessary verbosity?

Score	Description
4	Proposal is crisp and precise. Every sentence earns its place. Module descriptions are clear and under 250 words. No filler, no fluff.
3	Proposal is clear with minor verbosity. Mostly concise; occasional unnecessary elaboration.
2	Proposal is understandable but padded. Verbose sections, repetitive phrasing, or filler content.
1	Proposal is difficult to parse. Bloated, unclear, or reads like unedited LLM output.
0	Proposal is incoherent or unreadable.

5. I/O Specification Quality

Are inputs and outputs clearly specified for each module?

Score	Description
4	Each module has crystal-clear input and output specifications. A reader knows exactly what goes in and what comes out. Specifications are concrete and testable.
3	I/O specifications are clear for most modules. Minor ambiguity in one or two.
2	I/O specifications present but vague or incomplete for several modules.
1	I/O specifications are unclear throughout. Reader cannot determine what modules actually do.
0	No I/O specifications provided.

6. System Integration

Do module descriptions explain how each module fits into the larger system?

Score	Description
4	Integration is clearly articulated for all modules. Data flow between modules is obvious. The system architecture is evident from the proposal.
3	Integration is explained for most modules. Minor gaps in how pieces connect.
2	Integration is mentioned but unclear. Reader must infer how modules relate.
1	Little attention to integration. Modules described in isolation.
0	No integration described. Modules appear unconnected.

7. Coverage Rationale

Is there a clear justification for the choice of topics covered?

Score	Description
4	Rationale is thoughtful and compelling. Topic choices align naturally with the theme and demonstrate intentional selection. Trade-offs acknowledged if relevant.
3	Rationale is provided and reasonable. Minor gaps in justification.
2	Rationale is superficial. Topics seem arbitrarily chosen; justification is weak.
1	Rationale is missing or unconvincing. No clear reason for topic selection.
0	No rationale provided.

8. Module Description Quality

Are individual module descriptions complete and well-crafted?

Score	Description
4	All module descriptions are excellent. Each includes title, topics, I/O, integration context, and prerequisites. Descriptions are specific and informative.
3	Module descriptions are good. All required elements present with minor weaknesses.
2	Module descriptions are uneven. Some are complete; others lack required elements or are vague.
1	Module descriptions are poor. Most lack required elements or are too vague to evaluate.
0	Module descriptions are missing or unusable.

Scoring

Total points: 32 possible (8 criteria × 4 points each)

Revision Policy

Initial proposal: Due Monday, Week 2
Feedback: Provided by Tuesday (end of day)
Final proposal: Due Thursday, Week 2

One revision cycle is permitted. The final proposal is the graded version. Make feedback count.