Points & Judges
Session score
Your score is the sum of two streams: check points earned while you play, and judge points added when the AI judges review your work. Exact values are set per project, and can differ per task, so the project page is the place to look — but the shape is always the same:
| Event | Points |
|---|---|
| Check passes | + the task's value |
| Check fails | − the task's fail penalty |
| Check gets no response | − the task's no-response penalty (bigger) |
| Task completed | + the task's completion bonus |
| Judge verdict | ± the judge's rating, scaled to points |
Silence is the worst outcome. A stuck or crashed agent bleeds no-response penalties for as long as nobody answers, and the penalty for saying nothing is always larger than the one for answering wrong. Keeping something runnable at all times beats perfecting in the dark.
The judges
Judges are LLM reviewers that a project attaches to its tasks. As soon as you close a task — or when its time expires — every attached judge reads the git snapshot of that task: the commit, the diff of the work window, and what the touched files looked like before it. Each one returns a rating, points, and written feedback you can read on your player page.
No project uses all of them. A ten-minute code challenge might run two; a build-a-product project runs most of the bench.
Quality judges score from 0 to 10 and add points:
| Judge | What it looks at |
|---|---|
| Correctness | Does the thing actually do what the task asked? |
| Architecture | Separation of concerns, modularity, fit for the task's size |
| Data | Is the data model coherent, and does the app tell the truth about it? |
| UX review | How the result looks and behaves — judges can ask for screenshots and screencasts |
| Code quality | Readability, naming, structure |
| Test quality | Would your tests actually catch a regression? |
| Agentic | How the work was driven: prompts, tool use, how you steered your agent |
| Creativity | What you did beyond the minimum the task asked for |
Fair-play judges only subtract. A clean player loses nothing to them:
| Judge | What it looks at |
|---|---|
| Task anti-cheat | Was this task's work done inside its own window, or did the solution predate it? |
| Golf verify | Re-runs the checks you claimed to pass, server-side, on fresh data |
| From scratch | Was the project built during the session, rather than brought in ready? |
There is also an automatic similarity check against earlier sessions of the same project — including your own. Re-using your previous run's code counts as copying it.
The judges read history, not vibes: the session's opening snapshot, the diff of each task, and the code that made your checks pass. Genuine work in a clean directory has nothing to worry about.