Code Review Rubric

Use this rubric when reviewing code checkpoints (Week 10).

Total Points: 150

Point Conversion

Score	Points (per criterion)	Description
5	100% of weight	Excellent
4	80% of weight	Good
3	60% of weight	Satisfactory
2	40% of weight	Needs Work
1	20% of weight	Incomplete

Scoring Scale

Score	Meaning
5	Excellent - Production-quality code
4	Good - Minor improvements needed
3	Satisfactory - Functional but needs polish
2	Needs Work - Significant issues
1	Incomplete - Major problems

---

Criteria

1. Functionality (30% = 45 points)

Does the implementation work as intended?

Score	Description
5	All features work; handles edge cases; robust error handling
4	Core features work well; minor edge case issues
3	Main functionality works; some features incomplete
2	Partial functionality; significant bugs
1	Does not run or fundamentally broken

Guiding Questions:

• Can you run the code successfully?
• Do the main features work as described?
• How does it handle unexpected inputs or errors?

---

2. Code Quality (25% = 37.5 points)

Is the code well-written and maintainable?

Score	Description
5	Clean, idiomatic code; excellent organization; follows best practices
4	Good code quality; consistent style; well-organized
3	Readable but some issues; inconsistent in places
2	Hard to follow; poor organization; code smells
1	Unmaintainable; no structure

Guiding Questions:

• Is the code easy to read and understand?
• Are functions and classes appropriately sized?
• Is there code duplication that should be refactored?
• Are naming conventions consistent and descriptive?

---

3. Testing (20% = 30 points)

Is the code adequately tested?

Score	Description
5	Comprehensive test suite; high coverage; tests edge cases
4	Good test coverage; tests main functionality
3	Basic tests present; some gaps
2	Minimal testing; major functionality untested
1	No tests or tests don’t work

Guiding Questions:

• What is the approximate test coverage?
• Are both unit tests and integration tests present?
• Do tests actually verify correct behavior?
• Are edge cases and error conditions tested?

---

4. Reproducibility (15% = 22.5 points)

Can others run and reproduce the results?

Score	Description
5	One-command setup; clear instructions; reproducible results
4	Easy to set up; minor clarifications needed
3	Can be reproduced with some effort
2	Difficult to reproduce; missing dependencies or instructions
1	Cannot reproduce

Guiding Questions:

• Can you clone and run the code following the README?
• Are all dependencies specified (requirements.txt, pyproject.toml)?
• Is there a clear way to reproduce the main results?
• Are data files or download scripts provided?

---

5. Documentation (10% = 15 points)

Is the code and repository well-documented?

Score	Description
5	Excellent README; API docs; inline comments where needed
4	Good documentation; covers setup and usage
3	Adequate documentation; some gaps
2	Minimal documentation
1	No documentation

Guiding Questions:

• Is the README complete with setup, usage, and examples?
• Are complex algorithms or non-obvious code explained?
• Is there API documentation for key functions/classes?

---

Review Template

## Code Review: [Team Name]

**Reviewer:** [Your Name]
**Commit/Tag Reviewed:** [Git SHA or tag]
**Overall Assessment:** [Excellent / Good / Satisfactory / Needs Work / Incomplete]

### Scores

| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Weight | Points |
|-----------|-------------|--------|--------|
| Functionality | | 30% | /45 |
| Code Quality | | 25% | /37.5 |
| Testing | | 20% | /30 |
| Reproducibility | | 15% | /22.5 |
| Documentation | | 10% | /15 |
| **Total** | | 100% | **/150** |

### Reproduction Attempt
[Describe your attempt to run the code. What worked? What didn't?]

### Code Quality Observations

**Strengths:**
1.
2.

**Issues Found:**
1.
2.

### Specific Code Comments
[Reference specific files and line numbers]

| File | Line(s) | Comment |
|------|---------|---------|
| | | |
| | | |

### Testing Feedback
[Comments on test coverage, quality, and suggestions]

### Recommendations for Final Submission
1.
2.
3.

---

Code Review Checklist

Use this checklist during your review:

Functionality

• Code runs without errors
• Main features work as described
• Error handling is appropriate
• Edge cases are handled

Code Quality

• Consistent coding style
• Meaningful variable/function names
• No obvious code duplication
• Functions are appropriately sized
• No hardcoded values that should be configurable

Testing

• Tests exist and pass
• Tests cover main functionality
• Tests verify correct behavior (not just “no crash”)

Reproducibility

• Dependencies are specified
• Setup instructions work
• Data is accessible or downloadable
• Results can be reproduced

Documentation

• README explains what the project does
• Setup instructions are clear
• Usage examples are provided

---

back