Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Understanding how proposals are evaluated helps you craft a competitive application. At ProjectDiscovery, we look for contributors who demonstrate technical skill, community engagement, and realistic planning.Overview
All proposals are reviewed by project mentors and organization administrators using a consistent evaluation rubric. The selection process is competitive, and we aim to choose contributors who will successfully complete their projects and continue contributing to the community.Scoring System
Proposals are scored across five categories, each weighted differently based on importance:| Category | Weight | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Technical Merit | 30% | Quality of the technical approach |
| Implementation Plan | 25% | Realism and detail of the timeline |
| Community Engagement | 20% | Prior contributions and involvement |
| Applicant Qualifications | 15% | Relevant skills and experience |
| Proposal Quality | 10% | Clarity and professionalism |
Evaluation Categories
1. Technical Merit (30%)
This evaluates the soundness and quality of your technical approach. What We Look For:- Clear understanding of the problem you’re solving
- Viable technical approach that addresses the problem
- Realistic architecture and design decisions
- Understanding of the relevant tools and codebase
- Awareness of potential technical challenges
- Appropriate choice of technologies and methods
- Deep understanding of problem and existing code
- Novel or sophisticated technical approach
- Clear consideration of edge cases and challenges
- Specific implementation details with code examples
- Architecture aligns with project patterns
- Solid understanding of problem
- Viable technical approach
- General understanding of codebase
- Reasonable implementation strategy
- Some consideration of challenges
- Vague or incomplete problem definition
- Unrealistic or unclear technical approach
- Limited understanding of existing code
- Missing technical details
- No consideration of challenges
2. Implementation Plan (25%)
This evaluates how well you’ve planned the actual work. What We Look For:- Detailed, week-by-week milestones
- Realistic timeline that accounts for complexity
- Clear, measurable deliverables
- Appropriate scope for 175 or 350 hours
- Risk assessment and contingency plans
- Testing and documentation plans
- Highly detailed, week-by-week plan
- Milestones are specific and measurable
- Timeline accounts for testing and documentation
- Includes risk mitigation strategies
- Realistic buffer for unexpected issues
- Clear dependencies between milestones
- Clear milestones for each phase
- Reasonable timeline
- Identifiable deliverables
- Some consideration of testing
- Generally realistic scope
- Vague or missing milestones
- Unrealistic timeline
- Overly ambitious or too limited scope
- No testing or documentation plans
- Missing important phases
3. Community Engagement (20%)
This evaluates your involvement with ProjectDiscovery and the open source community. What We Look For:- Prior contributions to ProjectDiscovery projects
- Engagement on Discord or GitHub discussions
- Understanding of project goals and community norms
- Quality of interactions with mentors
- Early engagement (not just at application time)
- Helping other community members
- Multiple meaningful code contributions (merged PRs)
- Active participation in Discord community
- Filed useful bug reports or feature requests
- Helped other community members
- Demonstrated understanding through discussions
- Early and consistent engagement
- At least one meaningful contribution
- Participated in Discord or GitHub discussions
- Engaged with mentors about proposal
- Shows understanding of project
- Made effort to contribute before applying
- No prior contributions
- Limited or no community interaction
- Copy-paste proposals without customization
- Late engagement (only at application deadline)
- No understanding of project demonstrated
4. Applicant Qualifications (15%)
This evaluates whether you have the skills to complete the project. What We Look For:- Proficiency in relevant programming languages (especially Go)
- Past projects demonstrating similar skills
- Relevant coursework or professional experience
- Learning ability and self-direction
- Communication skills
- Evidence of completing past projects
- Strong proficiency in Go
- Completed similar projects in the past
- Relevant professional or academic experience
- Demonstrated learning ability
- Clear, professional communication
- Track record of finishing projects
- Basic-to-intermediate Go skills
- Some relevant project experience
- Willingness to learn
- Adequate communication skills
- Has completed some projects
- Limited programming experience
- No relevant past projects
- Unclear communication
- No evidence of project completion ability
5. Proposal Quality (10%)
This evaluates how well the proposal itself is written and organized. What We Look For:- Clear, professional writing
- Well-organized structure
- Complete information in all sections
- Proper grammar and spelling
- Appropriate length and detail
- Easy to understand
- Exceptionally clear and well-written
- Professional presentation
- Perfect grammar and spelling
- Well-organized with clear sections
- Appropriate length and detail
- Easy to follow and understand
- Clear writing
- Good organization
- Minor grammar/spelling issues
- All required sections complete
- Reasonable length
- Unclear or confusing writing
- Poor organization
- Many grammar/spelling errors
- Missing sections
- Too short or excessively long
What Makes a Strong Proposal
Based on our evaluation criteria, here are the key elements of proposals that score well:Technical Excellence
- Specific implementation details with code examples
- Understanding of existing architecture
- Consideration of edge cases and performance
- Appropriate technology choices
Realistic Planning
- Week-by-week breakdown with measurable milestones
- Buffer time for unexpected issues
- Testing and documentation included
- Scope matches available hours (175 or 350)
Community Connection
- Multiple contributions before applying
- Active Discord participation
- Understanding of project goals
- Professional interaction with mentors
Strong Communication
- Clear, concise writing
- Well-organized proposal
- Specific rather than vague
- Professional presentation
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Too Ambitious
- Proposing to rewrite major components
- Planning 500+ hours of work in 350 hours
- Not accounting for learning curve
- Ignoring testing and documentation time
Too Vague
- “Implement features” without specifics
- “Make improvements” without concrete goals
- Missing technical details
- No clear deliverables
No Prior Engagement
- First interaction is submitting proposal
- No contributions to ProjectDiscovery
- Doesn’t participate in Discord
- Hasn’t tried using the tools
Copy-Paste Proposals
- Generic proposals that could apply to any organization
- Not customized to ProjectDiscovery
- Copied sections from other proposals
- No specific understanding demonstrated
Unrealistic Timeline
- All work in first few weeks
- No buffer for problems
- No time for code review iterations
- Ignores dependency chains
Missing Technical Details
- High-level overview without specifics
- No explanation of “how”
- Missing architecture discussion
- No consideration of challenges
Tips for Improvement
Want to strengthen your proposal? Focus on these areas:Engage Early
Start contributing to ProjectDiscovery projects at least 4-6 weeks before the application deadline.
Be Specific
Replace vague descriptions with concrete examples, specific milestones, and technical details.
Get Feedback
Share draft proposals with mentors on Discord and iterate based on their feedback.
Show Understanding
Demonstrate deep understanding of the codebase through contributions and discussions.
Before Submitting
Review your proposal against this checklist:- Have you made at least one merged code contribution?
- Did you discuss your idea with mentors on Discord?
- Is every week of your timeline filled with specific milestones?
- Have you included testing and documentation time?
- Are your technical details specific and realistic?
- Is your scope appropriate for the hours (175 or 350)?
- Have you proofread for grammar and clarity?
- Does your proposal demonstrate understanding of the tool/codebase?
Selection Process
Timeline
- Application Period: Proposals submitted via GSoC website
- Initial Review: Mentors review all proposals for completeness
- Scoring: Mentors score proposals using this rubric
- Discussion: Mentors and admins discuss top candidates
- Selection: Final decisions based on scores and slot availability
- Notification: Selected contributors announced by GSoC
What Happens After Scoring
- Proposals are ranked by total score
- Top-ranked proposals are prioritized for available slots
- Mentors consider workload and project dependencies
- Organization admins make final decisions
- All applicants are notified through GSoC platform
Even strong proposals may not be accepted if we have limited slots. We often receive more good proposals than we can accept.
Questions?
If you have questions about the evaluation process:- Discord: Ask in the #gsoc channel
- GitHub: Review existing project discussions
- Documentation: Read our application process guide