Each project is scored out of 100 points, weighted across five dimensions. Judges score independently; final scores are averaged. In the event of a tie, the higher score on Technical Execution breaks first, followed by Use of Chutes.

The same rubric applies to both the University and Corporate categories. The Sign in with Chutes special track is judged separately, on best use of that single feature.

How well the project is built. Judges look at code quality, architecture, completeness, and whether the demo actually works end-to-end. A working MVP beats a polished idea that doesn't run.

21–25: Fully functional, clean architecture, handles edge cases, deployable.

15–20: Works for the core flow, minor rough edges.

8–14: Partial implementation, key features missing or buggy.

0–7: Concept only, broken demo, or unable to run.

Mandatory criterion – projects that do not use Chutes as their compute provider are disqualified. Within that floor, judges score depth and creativity of the integration: are participants meaningfully leveraging on-chain inference, or just calling an endpoint as a wrapper?

21–25: Chutes is core to the project; non-trivial use of agentic workflows, on-chain inference, or platform-specific features.

15–20: Chutes is used as the primary compute backend with thoughtful integration.

8–14: Chutes is used but in a shallow or replaceable way.

0–7: Token integration, or Chutes not used (auto-disqualification at 0).

Originality of the idea and the approach. Judges reward projects that take a fresh angle on the productivity theme rather than reproducing existing tools. Novelty in the problem framing counts as much as novelty in the solution.

How well the project addresses "productivity solutions for students, corporates, or general public." Judges assess whether there's a real user, a clear pain point, and evidence the solution actually moves the needle. Projects with a defined target user and a credible go-to-market story score higher than generic productivity tools.

Clarity of the 5-minute video and the live finalist pitch. Judges look for a clear problem statement, a focused demo of the working product, and a coherent explanation of what was built during the hackathobn.