# Scoring rubric and guiding questions

Community Reviewers must consider each of the following points as they undertake their reviews:

* Assign a score between 1 and 5 for each criterion based on the scoring rubric below.
* For each of the three criteria, a score and rationale for your score must be provided.
* Each of the 3 sections should be considered and reviewed on its own merits. These sections are:
  * Impact \~ Does the proposal have the potential to positively impact Cardano?
  * Feasibility / Capability \~ Is the proposal feasible, and does the proposer have the capability to deliver the project successfully and manage Treasury funds properly?
  * Resources / Value for money \~ Does the proposal represent good value for the treasury and community?
* Your rationale must explain the score you have given. The review may be removed if a rationale does not correspond with the score given.
* Any score without a rationale will be filtered out, and you will not be compensated.
* Your rationale should help the voters decide, so ensure your considerations, scores, and rationales are comprehensible.
* Consider and communicate what additional information or improvements the proposer could include in future funds.
* Be sure that you submit your review correctly.

Each of the three scored sections of a proposal (Impact, Feasibility, Value for Money) will be marked 1-5. Where \[1] = a very poor answer, and \[5] = a great answer.

1 star - VERY POOR ANSWER

2 stars - POOR ANSWER

3 stars - ACCEPTABLE ANSWER

4 stars - GOOD ANSWER

5 stars - GREAT ANSWER

The following are scoring examples and rationale for each of the 3 criteria.

<div align="center"><figure><img src="/files/NU4nMBb2eCUtSs7rWDUf" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure></div>

<div align="center"><figure><img src="/files/xbtJbVw05VEkEqbo46MQ" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure></div>

<figure><img src="/files/8TmhfoGArU2MbnyrV3H8" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>


---

# Agent Instructions: Querying This Documentation

If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.

Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter:

```
GET https://docs.projectcatalyst.io/current-fund/community-review/scoring-rubric-and-guiding-questions.md?ask=<question>
```

The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.

Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.