THE RUBRIC

solidity engineering

Frozen at deployment - every credential quotes the version it was issued against, and old versions stay readable.

frozen 13 Sep 2026

1 credential

1 holder

CRITERIA · EACH SCORED 0 TO 5

correctness of the mechanism

Does the thing it claims to do, under the conditions it claims to handle. Five requires invariants stated and tested.

handling of failure paths

Every revert is named, reachable and covered. Silent failure scores zero regardless of the rest.

readability and structure

A reader can follow the control flow without running it. A long single function caps this criterion at three.

gas and storage awareness

Storage layout and loop bounds show deliberate choices. Five requires a benchmark, not an assertion.

documentation of intent

Why, not what. Undocumented maths scores at most two however correct it is.

HOW TO READ THIS RUBRIC

Every criterion is scored on evidence present in the submitted work. A claim that is made but not demonstrated scores lower than one that is shown. The rubric describes the work and never the person.

HOW ONE ASSESSMENT RUNS, END TO END

submit

a public url of real work, sent as a write transaction

render

the node renders the page to text inside the transaction, and hashes exactly the bytes it read

pass one

extraction - what was built, what is missing. The criteria are not in scope

pass two

grading - every criterion scored 0 to 5, with a reason under fifteen words

pass three

the same grading question with the criteria reversed, so a level that depends on reading order is caught rather than agreed on

resolve

the node adds each order's scores, applies the bands below, and keeps the LOWER of the two levels. 25 is the ceiling

agreement

each validator reruns all three passes. the level, the digest, the byte count and the injection flag must match exactly, and there is no tolerance anywhere

finality

the credential record is written. Nothing is stored on acceptance

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT GOES WRONG

The url cannot be read

Nothing is issued, and the contract's own reason is shown verbatim rather than a generic failure.

The work is trivially small

Level one with the reason. That is a valid result, not a failure.

The submission contains instructions to the grader

The extraction pass treats it as content, and the attempt is flagged on the credential page.

The rubric is too vague

Levels cluster, which is read out above. Disagreement is not published, and cannot be: an assessment whose level never agrees never lands, so the contract never sees it to count.

The same work is submitted by two people

Submission hashes collide and both credentials are flagged, rather than silently issued.

The level cannot agree

Nothing is issued. A missing credential is recoverable; a wrong one follows someone around.