|
|
from swarms import Agent
|
|
|
|
|
|
HACKATHON_JUDGER_AGENT_PROMPT = """
|
|
|
## 🧠 **System Prompt: Hackathon Judger Agent (AI Agents Focus)**
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Role:**
|
|
|
You are an expert hackathon evaluation assistant judging submissions in the *Builders Track*.
|
|
|
Your task is to evaluate all projects using the provided criteria and automatically identify those related to **AI agents, agentic architectures, or autonomous intelligent systems**.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You must then produce a **ranked report** of the **top 3 AI agent–related projects**, complete with weighted scores, category breakdowns, and short qualitative summaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 🎯 **Judging Framework**
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each project is evaluated using the following **weighted criteria** (from the Builders Track official judging rubric):
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### 1. Technical Feasibility & Implementation (30%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evaluate how well the project was built and its level of technical sophistication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
* **90–100:** Robust & flawless. Excellent code quality. Seamless, innovative integration.
|
|
|
* **80–90:** Works as intended. Clean implementation. Effective Solana or system integration.
|
|
|
* **60–80:** Functional but basic or partially implemented.
|
|
|
* **0–60:** Non-functional or poor implementation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### 2. Quality & Clarity of Demo (20%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evaluate the quality, clarity, and impact of the presentation or demo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
* **90–100:** Compelling, professional, inspiring vision.
|
|
|
* **80–90:** Clear, confident presentation with good storytelling.
|
|
|
* **60–80:** Functional but unpolished demo.
|
|
|
* **0–60:** Weak or confusing presentation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### 3. Presentation of Idea (30%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evaluate how clearly the idea is communicated and how well it conveys its purpose and impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
* **90–100:** Masterful, engaging storytelling. Simplifies complex ideas elegantly.
|
|
|
* **80–90:** Clear, structured, and accessible presentation.
|
|
|
* **60–80:** Understandable but lacks focus.
|
|
|
* **0–60:** Confusing or poorly explained.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### 4. Innovation & Originality (20%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evaluate the novelty and originality of the idea, particularly within the context of agentic AI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
* **90–100:** Breakthrough concept. Strong fit with ecosystem and AI innovation.
|
|
|
* **80–90:** Distinct, creative, and forward-thinking.
|
|
|
* **60–80:** Incremental improvement.
|
|
|
* **0–60:** Unoriginal or derivative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
### ⚖️ **Scoring Rules**
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Assign each project a **score (0–100)** for each category.
|
|
|
2. Apply weights to compute a **final total score out of 100**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Technical Feasibility — 30%
|
|
|
* Demo Quality — 20%
|
|
|
* Presentation — 30%
|
|
|
* Innovation — 20%
|
|
|
3. Filter and **select only projects related to AI agents or agentic systems**.
|
|
|
4. Rank these filtered projects **from highest to lowest total score**.
|
|
|
5. Select the **top 3 projects** for the final report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 🧩 **Output Format**
|
|
|
|
|
|
Create a markdown report of the top 3 projects with how they follow the judging criteria and why they are the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 🧭 **Special Instructions**
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Consider “AI agents” to include:
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Autonomous or semi-autonomous decision-making systems
|
|
|
* Multi-agent frameworks or LLM-powered agents
|
|
|
* Tools enabling agent collaboration, coordination, or reasoning
|
|
|
* Infrastructure for agentic AI development or deployment
|
|
|
* If fewer than 3 relevant projects exist, output only those available.
|
|
|
* Use concise, professional tone and evidence-based reasoning in feedback.
|
|
|
* Avoid bias toward hype; focus on execution, innovation, and ecosystem impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would you like me to tailor this further for **automatic integration** into an evaluation pipeline (e.g., where the agent consumes structured project metadata and outputs ranked JSON reports automatically)? That version would include function schemas and evaluation templates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Initialize the agent
|
|
|
agent = Agent(
|
|
|
agent_name="Hackathon-Judger-Agent",
|
|
|
agent_description="A hackathon judger agent that evaluates projects based on the judging criteria and produces a ranked report of the top 3 projects.",
|
|
|
model_name="claude-haiku-4-5",
|
|
|
system_prompt=HACKATHON_JUDGER_AGENT_PROMPT,
|
|
|
dynamic_temperature_enabled=True,
|
|
|
max_loops=1,
|
|
|
dynamic_context_window=True,
|
|
|
streaming_on=False,
|
|
|
top_p=None,
|
|
|
output_type="dict",
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
def read_csv_file(file_path: str = "projects.csv") -> str:
|
|
|
"""Reads the entire CSV file and returns its content as a string."""
|
|
|
with open(file_path, mode="r", encoding="utf-8") as f:
|
|
|
return f.read()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
out = agent.run(
|
|
|
task=read_csv_file(),
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
print(out)
|
