Skip to content

code-review-template.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
170 lines (126 loc) · 4.22 KB

code-review-template.md

File metadata and controls

170 lines (126 loc) · 4.22 KB
Raw

Code Review Assessment Template

Student Info

Field Value
Name
Assignment
Date
Reviewer

Part 1: Code Walkthrough (40 points)

Ask the student to explain their code without looking at notes.

Q1: "Walk me through what happens when a user submits this form" (10 pts)

Score Criteria
10 Explains flow clearly, understands each step
7 Mostly correct, minor gaps
4 Vague explanation, misses key steps
0 Cannot explain their own code

Notes: _____________________

Q2: "Why did you use [specific approach] here?" (10 pts)

Score Criteria
10 Clear reasoning, aware of alternatives
7 Reasonable explanation
4 "It just works" / copied without understanding
0 Cannot explain

Notes: _____________________

Q3: "What does this line/function do?" (pick 2-3 lines) (10 pts)

Score Criteria
10 Correct explanation for all
7 Mostly correct
4 Struggles with some
0 Cannot explain basic lines

Lines asked about: _____________________

Q4: "What would happen if [edge case]?" (10 pts)

Score Criteria
10 Correctly predicts behavior, suggests fix
7 Mostly correct prediction
4 Wrong prediction but shows some understanding
0 No idea

Edge case asked: _____________________

Part 2: Live Modification (30 points)

Ask the student to make a small change on the spot.

Task: "_____________________"

(Example: "Add a character limit to the username" or "Change the error message color")

Score Criteria
30 Completes correctly without help
25 Completes with minor syntax help
20 Knows the approach, struggles with implementation
10 Needs significant guidance
0 Cannot attempt

Time taken: _____ minutes

Notes: _____________________

Part 3: Debugging (15 points)

Introduce a bug and ask them to fix it.

Bug introduced: "_____________________"

(Example: Remove a semicolon, change === to =, break a file path)

Score Criteria
15 Finds and fixes quickly
10 Finds with some effort
5 Needs hints to locate
0 Cannot find/fix

Time taken: _____ minutes

Part 4: Code Quality (15 points)

4a: Consistency with past work (5 pts)

Score Criteria
5 Similar style/complexity to previous assignments
3 Some improvement (explainable)
0 Dramatically different (suspicious)

4b: Appropriate complexity (5 pts)

Score Criteria
5 Solution matches problem complexity
3 Slightly over/under-engineered
0 Way too complex for the task

4c: Comments and naming (5 pts)

Score Criteria
5 Reasonable, matches student's usual style
3 Unusually detailed/perfect
0 Excessive AI-style documentation

Summary

Section Points Score
Code Walkthrough /40
Live Modification /30
Debugging /15
Code Quality /15
Total /100

AI Usage Assessment

  • Student demonstrates genuine understanding
  • Code complexity matches skill level
  • Can modify and debug their own code
  • Consistent with previous work

Confidence Level

  • High - Student clearly wrote this themselves
  • Medium - Some concerns but acceptable
  • Low - Strong indicators of AI assistance without understanding

Follow-up Actions

  • None needed
  • Require resubmission with in-class coding
  • Schedule additional review
  • Discuss academic integrity

Quick Reference: Common AI Red Flags

  1. Perfect error handling for edge cases not discussed in class
  2. Uses advanced concepts (ternary, null coalescing) inconsistently
  3. Over-commented obvious code
  4. Cannot make simple changes without looking things up
  5. Variable names suddenly very descriptive
  6. Code structure dramatically different from in-class examples

Reviewer Comments

Signature: _____________________ Date: _____________________