Main Hack Judging Rubric

Qualifying Requirement (pass/fail — not scored)

Before scoring, the submission must meet the baseline bar. If either box is unchecked the entry is not eligible to be scored.

Uses at least one SailPoint API/SDK (Access Models, Search, Identity Data, etc.)
Runs / demoable live (not slides-only)

Each category is scored 1–5. See below for the qualifications for each point level.

Is it obvious what problem this solves and for who it solves the problem for?

Score	Description
5	Problem and audience are stated in one sentence; a non-technical exec would immediately get "why this matters."
4	Use-case is clear with minimal explanation needed.
3	Use-case is understandable but requires some unpacking or assumes context.
2	Use-case is vague, generic ("shows some identity data"), or only clear after the team explains their reasoning.
1	No discernible problem being solved; feels like a tech demo in search of a purpose.

Does it do something unexpected, or solve a known problem in a new way?

Score	Description
5	Novel angle nobody else in the room likely thought of; combines data/tools in a surprising way.
4	Clear creative twist on a familiar problem.
3	Solid idea, but a fairly expected application of the tools (e.g., "list risky access").
2	Close to a out-of-the-box/reference implementation with minor changes.
1	Directly mirrors existing SailPoint UI/feature with no new angle.

Does it actually work, live, with realistic data and output?

Score	Description
5	Fully working end-to-end demo, live calls to SailPoint APIs, handles reasonable user input gracefully.
4	Works live with only minor rough edges or edge-case gaps.
3	Core path works but needs some mocked data or a happy-path-only demo.
2	Partially working; several features are simulated, stubbed, or require the presenter to talk around failures.
1	Non-functional or entirely mocked/slideware.

How meaningfully are required SailPoint APIs and/or DevRel tools used?

Score	Description
5	Thoughtfully combines multiple SailPoint API areas in a way that clearly showcases its value.
4	Solid, purposeful use of one API area
3	Meets the bar — one API area are present and functional.
2	API use feels bolted-on or superficial (called once, not central to the value).
1	Barely meets the qualifying requirement; usage is trivial.

Would someone actually want to use this? Is the demo and result actually fun?

Score	Description
5	Genuinely fun/delightful to watch or try; judges want to keep playing with it after the pitch.
4	Clear "wow" or "that's fun" moment; presentation is engaging.
3	Functional and understandable, but flat — no real spark or delight.
2	Confusing or dry demo; requires heavy narration to follow what's happening.
1	Hard to understand what's even being shown, or feels like a chore to sit through.