> Source URL: /projects/project-1-proposal/proposal.rubric # 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.** | ## Expectations 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. --- ## Backlinks The following sources link to this document: - [Proposal Rubric](/projects/project-1-proposal/proposal.project.llm.md)