| Estimate Sequence | 20 marks
|
|---|
|
|
| Initial estimate | 5 marks
|
| Initial estimate justification | 5 marks
|
| Post-spec re-estimate and justification | 5 marks
|
| Post-design re-estimate and jsutification | 5 marks
|
|
|
| not done | 0
|
| poorly done | 2
|
| well done | 4
|
| excellent | 5
|
| Detailed Time Log | 5 marks
|
|---|
| Look for detail and accuracy
|
| Ensure phase is identified
|
| not done | 0
|
| poorly done | 2
|
| well done | 4
|
| excellent | 5
|
| Detailed Defect Log | 5 marks
|
|---|
| Look for detail and accuracy
|
| Ensure phase is identified
|
| Ensure brief note explaining defect is present
|
| not done | 0
|
| poorly done | 2
|
| well done | 4
|
| excellent | 5
|
| Time Summary | 5 marks
|
|---|
| Check that time adds up properly
|
| Part marks for suspect entries
|
| 1 mark per phase
|
| Defect Summary | 5 marks
|
|---|
| Ensure some meaningful classification is applied
|
| not done | 0
|
| poorly done | 2
|
| well done | 4
|
| excellent | 5
|
| Part marks for suspect entries
|
| 1 mark per phase
|
| Specification printout* | 5 marks
|
|---|
| Explains inputs and outputs clearly and concisely
|
| not done | 0
|
| poorly done | 2
|
| well done with some issues | 3
|
| excellent | 4
|
| top | 5
|
| Design printout* | 5 marks
|
|---|
| Explains algorithm and data structures used
|
| Clear and concise
|
| Do not deduct marks for bad algorithm or data structures here
|
| not done | 0
|
| poorly done | 2
|
| well done with some issues | 3
|
| excellent | 4
|
| top | 5
|
| Code Printout* | 25 marks
|
|---|
| How clearly the code is written
|
| Good variable and subroutine naming
|
| Good comments
|
| Clarity of coding constructs
|
| Do not take into account whether or not it works
|
| Do not take into account algorithm or efficiency
|
| not done | 0
|
| poorly done | 10
|
| well done with some issues | 15
|
| excellent | 20
|
| top | 25
|
| Solution Quality* | 10 marks
|
|---|
| not done or cannot work | 0
|
| only solves part of the problem or very inefficient | 4
|
| reasonably ok, reasonably efficient | 8
|
| excellent, everything considered | 9
|
| top | 10
|
| Testing Coverage | 5 marks
|
|---|
| Tests are well described
|
| Tests cover a good range of expected inputs
|
| Tests cover a good range of corner cases
|
| not done | 0
|
| poorly done | 2
|
| well done | 4
|
| excellent | 5
|
| Commentary | 10 marks
|
|---|
|
|
| not done | 0
|
| poorly done | 4
|
| well done | 8
|
| well done plus some extra excellent insight into something | 10
|