Read your submission
Start with your live website, GitHub repository and supporting evidence. Identify the student or team and the work being assessed.
PROFESSOR AGENT
Check the evidence.
Improve the work.
Understand the evidence needed for university assessment. Use agent feedback to improve your project, then submit your individual portfolio to the university’s Connect platform.
REQUIREMENTS → EVIDENCE → FEEDBACK → INSTRUCTOR ASSESSMENT
How Professor Agent works
The agents provide formative feedback; the Field Expert assesses your individual evidence against the university assignment requirements and awards the official marks. A website alone cannot establish your contribution, learning or all four component grades. Follow the evidence and submission steps →
Check each requirement
Compare the work with the university criteria. For Digital Presence, check website functionality, Google Analytics implementation, social profile setup and dated posting evidence.
Support the instructor’s assessment
Organise evidence for each official component so the Field Expert can judge which university grade band is supported. Show what was checked, what is missing and what could not be verified. Do not turn an unavailable website or private evidence into an invented score.
Improve and review again
Give specific fixes with the evidence needed for a new review. Keep the review date and unresolved checks visible. The Field Expert assesses the portfolio against the official component criteria before awarding marks.
Current availability: saved repository checks and instructor-reviewed quest points are available below. Utility and Design now review public GitHub source on the project checker page and provide separate scores, ideas and copyable prompts. Design feedback never affects passing or failing. Live browser journey testing and automatic university grades are not connected. A code signal is supporting evidence, not a completed website test or grade.
0403EE-2 · DIGITAL PRESENCE · 30% OF THE MODULE
What your website assessment must demonstrate
The university requires a fully functional website with Google Analytics, plus properly set up social media accounts and activity. The exact grade bands below come from the university brief.
Evidence the review needs
- Functionality: a live URL and observed checks of the main website journey, including the relevant buttons, forms and confirmation.
- Google Analytics: evidence that the required analytics is implemented. Finding another analytics package does not prove Google Analytics is present.
- Social profiles: account links showing logo, hero image, description and contact details.
- Activity: dated posts covering the required month and number of posts per account.
Mobile usability, readability, keyboard use and error handling help test whether the website works. They support the review; they do not replace the university grade bands.
Every finding needs a status
Checked
The requirement is supported by a recorded test or relevant evidence. Show what was observed and when.
Missing
A required item was not submitted or a performed check demonstrated a gap. State the missing item and how to address it.
Unable to verify
The checker cannot access the evidence or perform the test. Request evidence or Field Expert review; do not claim the requirement passed.
Example review explanation—not an awarded grade: a working website, verified Google Analytics, and one properly set up social account with at least 12 posts over a month support the university’s Good band (7–8.4). The exact mark still needs review; the Excellent band requires at least three qualifying social accounts.
A website cannot establish the entire module grade
Active Participation (15%) requires workshop attendance and contribution evidence. Digital Advertising (20%) requires campaign setup and optimization evidence. Experimentation (35%) requires the university’s account and transaction evidence for blockchain, crypto, NFTs, DeFi and day trading. Professor Agent must not infer these from a website or GitHub commits.
Every component must reach 5.5/10. Submission points, quest points and AI prompting feedback remain separate from these university marks.
What runs today
The classroom checker scans selected public GitHub files for code and documentation signals. It does not execute the live website’s customer journey, access private analytics, or count social posts. A missing code signal is not automatically a failed requirement.
LEGIT Agentic’s separate technical website audit is currently connected to the Year 2 hub. It is not connected to this Year 4 page. The results below are repository checks and instructor-reviewed quest points.
Submission progress awards 5 points for a GitHub link and 5 for a live website URL. These points acknowledge submission only; they do not grade website quality.
Reviewed project-point criteria
Expand a project on the live board to submit evidence and see review feedback. A submitted link alone does not complete the “Ship your starting point” quest, which also requires a meaningful commit you can explain.
Project checks & review feedback
Loading saved project checks…
SUPPLEMENTAL AI PRACTICE FEEDBACKUseful work.
Useful work.
Evidence to back it up.
The agent rates the log and suggests a next challenge. Improve your evidence and resubmit; your latest submission counts.
Problem & exploration
Up to 15 for a clear need and useful outcome; up to 10 for different evidenced capabilities.
Prompting
Clear context, constraints, specific requests and improved attempts.
Verification
Concrete outputs, appropriate checks, observed results and corrections.
Learning
Honest reflection, limitations and a useful next step.
Five distinct evidenced capabilities can earn full breadth points. Repeating the same task or collecting tool names does not increase breadth. Unsupported “it works” claims earn little verification credit.
What does the agent actually verify?
The rating agent evaluates your written log. It does not open evidence links or independently test your work, so include output excerpts and test observations. These are formative AI practice scores, separate from university marks. See the official four-component course grading framework.
LEGIT Agentic is a separate website-readiness audit available in the course hub. Use its findings as one input to a website experiment, then check the relevant behaviour yourself. It does not verify all assignment outcomes or replace your evidence.
If rating is unavailable, a successful submission is still recorded as pending. Follow the submission form’s status message and retry later. Wait at least one minute between submissions.