> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.hackersquad.io/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Judge Scoring

> Configure scoring criteria, review judge scores, and manage round progression

The **Judge Votes** tab in the Event Management dashboard shows all scoring activity from your judges. Access it from the [Event Management Overview](/event-management/overview) by clicking the **Judge Votes** tab.

This page covers how scoring works, how to configure criteria, and how to advance projects between rounds.

## Scoring criteria and rubrics

Each event can define scoring criteria that judges use to evaluate projects. Criteria are the dimensions on which projects are scored — for example, innovation, technical execution, presentation quality, or impact.

| Setting           | Description                                                                                                   |
| ----------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Criteria name** | The dimension being scored (e.g., "Innovation", "Technical Complexity")                                       |
| **Description**   | Guidance for judges on what this criterion measures                                                           |
| **Weight**        | Relative importance of this criterion when calculating the overall score (when category weighting is enabled) |

### Category weighting

When category weighting is enabled, each criterion has a weight that determines how much it contributes to the project's overall score. For example:

| Criterion           | Weight | Impact                             |
| ------------------- | ------ | ---------------------------------- |
| Innovation          | 30%    | Heavily influences the total score |
| Technical Execution | 40%    | Most influential criterion         |
| Presentation        | 15%    | Moderate influence                 |
| Impact              | 15%    | Moderate influence                 |

<Note>When category weighting is disabled, all criteria contribute equally to the overall score.</Note>

## How judges score

Within their assigned judging group, judges evaluate each project by:

1. **Reviewing the project** — reading the description, GitHub link, demo description, and technologies used
2. **Scoring each criterion** — assigning a numeric score for each defined criterion
3. **Adding notes** — providing optional written feedback about the project

Judges can only score projects assigned to their judging group. Scores are saved automatically as judges work through their assigned projects.

## Viewing scores

The Judge Votes tab displays:

| Column              | Description                                                          |
| ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Project**         | The project being scored                                             |
| **Judge**           | The judge who submitted the score                                    |
| **Round**           | Which judging round the score belongs to                             |
| **Criteria scores** | Individual scores for each criterion                                 |
| **Overall score**   | Aggregated score (weighted or unweighted depending on configuration) |
| **Notes**           | Judge's written feedback on the project                              |

You can filter scores by round, group, or judge to drill into specific scoring details.

## Score aggregation

Project scores are aggregated across all judges in a group:

* Each judge's scores for a project are combined per criterion
* If category weighting is enabled, criteria scores are multiplied by their weight
* The final project score for a round is the average of all judge scores in the group

## Round progression

For multi-round tournaments, you advance top-scoring projects from one round to the next:

<Steps>
  <Step title="Review round results">
    After all judges in a round have completed scoring, review the leaderboard to see project rankings for that round.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Select advancing projects">
    Choose which projects advance to the next round. Typically this is the top N projects by score.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Assign to next round groups">
    Add the advancing projects to judging groups in the next round. Use auto-balancing to distribute them evenly.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Begin next round">
    Judges assigned to the new round can now begin scoring the advancing projects.
  </Step>
</Steps>

## Late submission tracking

The system tracks whether projects were submitted after the official deadline. Late submissions are flagged so judges and managers can factor timeliness into their evaluation if desired.

<Tip>Review all judge scores before advancing projects to the next round. Ensure every project in a group has been scored to avoid incomplete rankings.</Tip>

## Next steps

<Columns>
  <Card title="Leaderboard" icon="ranking-star" href="/event-management/leaderboard">
    View real-time rankings and score breakdowns.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Judges" icon="gavel" href="/event-management/judges">
    Manage judge assignments and groups.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Community Voting" icon="thumbs-up" href="/event-management/community-voting">
    Enable attendee voting alongside judge scoring.
  </Card>
</Columns>