Assignment Peer Review Rubric

Use this rubric when reviewing Assignment 0 and Assignment 1 submissions.

Scoring Scale

Score	Meaning
5	Excellent - Exceeds expectations
4	Good - Meets all expectations
3	Satisfactory - Meets most expectations with minor issues
2	Needs Work - Missing key elements or significant issues
1	Incomplete - Major problems or missing components

Criteria

1. Functionality (25%)

Does the code work as specified?

Score	Description
5	All features work correctly; handles edge cases gracefully
4	All required features work; minor edge case issues
3	Core features work; one feature has issues
2	Multiple features broken or missing
1	Code does not run or produces incorrect output

Guiding Questions:

Do all required features work as described in the assignment?
Does the program handle invalid inputs appropriately?
Are error messages helpful and informative?

2. Code Quality (25%)

Is the code clean, readable, and well-organized?

Score	Description
5	Exceptionally clean; follows all conventions; excellent structure
4	Clean code with consistent style; good organization
3	Readable but some inconsistencies; minor organization issues
2	Hard to follow; inconsistent style; poor organization
1	Unreadable; no apparent structure or conventions

Guiding Questions:

Are variable and function names descriptive?
Is the code properly indented and formatted?
Are functions appropriately sized (not too long)?
Is there unnecessary code duplication?

3. Testing (20%)

Does the submission include adequate tests?

Score	Description
5	Comprehensive tests covering normal cases, edge cases, and errors
4	Good test coverage for main functionality
3	Basic tests present; some gaps in coverage
2	Few tests; major functionality untested
1	No tests or tests do not run

Guiding Questions:

Do tests cover the main functionality?
Are edge cases tested?
Do tests actually verify correct behavior (not just run without error)?

4. Documentation (15%)

Is the code and repository well-documented?

Score	Description
5	Excellent README; clear docstrings; usage examples
4	Good README with setup and usage; adequate docstrings
3	Basic README; some documentation gaps
2	Minimal documentation; README incomplete
1	No README or documentation

Guiding Questions:

Can you understand how to run the code from the README?
Are dependencies and setup instructions clear?
Do complex functions have docstrings explaining their purpose?

5. CI/CD (15%)

Does the submission have working continuous integration?

Score	Description
5	All CI checks pass; comprehensive workflow
4	CI passes; covers testing and linting
3	CI configured but has minor failures or gaps
2	CI partially configured; major issues
1	No CI configured or completely broken

Guiding Questions:

Do GitHub Actions run on push/PR?
Do all tests pass in CI?
Is linting/formatting checked?

Review Template

Copy and paste this template for your review:

## Review Summary

**Overall Assessment:** [Excellent / Good / Satisfactory / Needs Work / Incomplete]

### Scores

| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Comments |
|-----------|-------------|----------|
| Functionality | | |
| Code Quality | | |
| Testing | | |
| Documentation | | |
| CI/CD | | |

**Total: __ / 25**

### Strengths
1.
2.
3.

### Areas for Improvement
1.
2.
3.

### Specific Suggestions
-

back