Teams at this student hackathon had to get a mentor-approved specification before opening an IDE. In organizer Maurizio Argoneto’s retrospective, the rule shifted the event’s emphasis: teams still built with coding agents, but they first had to define the problem, intended users and requirements they would use to judge the result.
What the “no coding before approval” rule required
Argoneto says GDG Basilicata, the IEEE Student Branch at the University of Basilicata and the university’s Department of Sciences organized the event for a room sized for 50–80 people. Teams of three or four had an eight-hour build window and used Google’s Gemini models.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Before coding, every team spent 90 minutes writing a specification and getting a mentor’s approval. The supplied SPEC.md template prompted teams to define:
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware match- The problem and the people the project was for
- Functional requirements and non-functional constraints
- The proposed architecture
- The expected output
According to Argoneto, the template gave less-experienced teams a starting point, while mentor sign-off kept the specification as a required gate rather than an optional planning exercise.
#1 Best Overall
How the build and pitch workflow worked
Cloud-based development
Teams redeemed Google AI Studio API keys and worked in a browser rather than installing GPU drivers or downloading local model weights. After approval, they could use Google Antigravity, Cursor, or VS Code with Gemini Code Assist. The account describes coding agents reading SPEC.md, scaffolding an application and helping connect Gemini API calls. Teams then checked whether the generated work matched their written requirements.
Project choices and final presentation
Teams could choose among four tracks: university study tools, local government and territory services, autonomous agents, and multimodal applications involving text, image, audio or code. Deliverables were limited to a web app, dashboard or AI agent.
For pitch preparation, teams could upload their specification, code and documentation into NotebookLM to produce a three-minute pitch script, a Q&A FAQ and, optionally, an audio overview. These were preparation aids; the live pitch remained part of the judged event.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteWhat the rubric rewarded
Argoneto reports that judges assessed the specification, working demo and pitch. His account assigns 35 of 100 points to SPEC.md and 30 of 100 to the pitch. Those are figures for this event’s rubric, not general hackathon standards; the account does not state the demo’s point allocation.
That weighting made the written plan consequential. Teams were not judged solely on whether they could produce a functioning prototype: they also had to make their intended outcome legible and present it clearly.
How the event enforced its deadline
The schedule moved from room, projector and Wi-Fi checks to check-in and matchmaking, a keynote, specification and mentor sign-off, the coding sprint, integration and polish, and pitch preparation. Submission locked at 17:00. Organizers gave reminders 60, 30 and 10 minutes before the lock, then automatically closed write access to the submission folder. Live pitches followed, each with three minutes to present and two minutes for Q&A.
Argoneto’s summary of the rule was: “The deadline is not a suggestion.” In practical terms, the fixed cutoff and automatic permissions change made the deadline enforceable rather than dependent on teams noticing a reminder.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →What organizers learned from the friction points
Venue connectivity
The author says university Wi-Fi struggled under dozens of simultaneous connections. Organizers requested a dedicated SSID from IT ahead of time and kept a couple of 4G hotspots as backup. This is a contingency described for that event, not a guarantee that mobile service will handle a crowded venue; organizers should confirm coverage where the event is held.
Best Value
- Keep track of everything from attendance to test scores
- Spiral bound
- Measures 8-1/2" x 11"
API-key access
Some students had trouble redeeming Google AI Studio keys, so mentors carried spare keys. The episode illustrates why access checks and a clear fallback matter when a build depends on cloud services.
Writing and interpreting specifications
Teams unfamiliar with specifications stalled early, prompting organizers to use a pre-filled template. In retrospect, Argoneto also identifies earlier mentor briefings, a longer matchmaking window and clearer wording about what counted as “multimodal” as improvements for a future event.
What this format can—and cannot—show
The account is one organizer’s retrospective, not an independently verified event report or a controlled comparison with a hackathon that lets teams code immediately. It supports a practical conclusion about the design: when a specification is required, approved and scored, teams must spend time agreeing on the problem and success criteria before building. It does not establish that this format produces better projects or outcomes than other formats.
For organizers considering a similar rule, the experience points to connected decisions rather than a single policy: reserve time for specification and approval, provide a template, make the rubric reflect the work you value, brief mentors, test account access, and plan for network failure. The source account names five ownership roles: an Event Lead for coordination and university relations; a Logistics & Venue Lead for the room, Wi-Fi, power strips and catering; a Tech & Mentor Lead for API keys and guidance; a Marketing & Community Lead for graphics, social channels and media; and a Platform & Judging Lead for submissions and scoring materials.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
