> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.projectcatalyst.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.projectcatalyst.io/previous-funds/fund11-docs/community-review-guidelines-fund-11/scoring-rubric-and-guiding-questions.md).
# 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:
1. Impact \~ Does the proposal have the potential to positively impact Cardano?
2. Feasibility / Capability \~ Is the proposal feasible, and does the proposer have the capability to deliver the project successfully and manage Treasury funds properly?
3. 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.
---
# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.
## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation by asking a question.
Perform an HTTP GET request on the following URL with the `ask` and `goal` query parameters:
```
GET https://docs.projectcatalyst.io/previous-funds/fund11-docs/community-review-guidelines-fund-11/scoring-rubric-and-guiding-questions.md?ask=&goal=
```
`ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
`goal` is what the user is ultimately trying to achieve, the reason they need the answer. Sharing it helps GitBook give you a better, more relevant answer. A goal is most helpful when it describes the outcome the user wants rather than restating the question. For example, with `ask=how do I create an API token`, a goal like `automate deployments from our CI pipeline` lets GitBook tailor the answer to that use case.
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.
