# Hack Submit

> Prepare and verify a hackathon submission against the exact event, Devpost, README and pitch requirements using truthful project evidence and access checks.

- Skill: `shreyp087/hack-submit` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add shreyp087/hack-submit`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/shreyp087/hack-submit/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: Shreyp087 (https://skillmd.com/u/shreyp087)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/shreyp087/hack-submit

---


# Hack Submit

## Goal

Deliver a complete, consistent submission package that judges can access and understand, grounded in the working project and the event's actual requirements.

## Submission package

Read the current official event rules, required submission fields and any organizer clarifications. Record the deadline and timezone, video limit, repository/access requirements, required technologies, disclosures and applicable eligibility gates. Treat missing information as unknown and surface contradictions instead of applying generic hackathon rules.

Match the exact Devpost or other submission form's fields and limits. Prepare the requested README, project story, screenshots, architecture explanation, demo/pitch materials and links without inventing requirements. Reuse and reconcile existing drafts so their claims agree.

Describe the purpose, user action, visible outcome and technical contribution. Clearly distinguish implemented behavior, partially working behavior, replay, simulation and future plans. Attribute reused work and AI assistance as required by the event. Support performance or impact claims with actual evidence, test conditions and sample sizes.

Make the demo script fit the required duration and the actual product flow. Prepare concise answers to likely rubric-based questions about what the team built, the sponsor integration, technical choices, learning and known limits. Hypothetical judge feedback is critique, not evidence of demand or likely victory.

Check required links and media using a fresh unauthenticated context where public access is required. Verify that the application, repository and video are accessible in the intended way, that media is processed and within limits, and that testing instructions match the product. If a link or asset does not yet exist, identify it as missing rather than supplying a fictitious URL.

## Constraints

- A polished presentation cannot repair failed eligibility; keep hard-gate status separate from rubric strengths.
- Never fabricate users, quotes, benchmarks, awards, completed integrations or measured gains.
- Label replay and edited timing when they could be mistaken for live behavior or speed. Do not imply a script is a recorded video.
- Preserve the chosen stack and hosting; document what is implemented rather than adding technology to improve the story.
- Preparing assets does not authorize publishing, uploading, messaging or submitting. If the user has already authorized those actions, proceed within that scope and verify the resulting status.
- Do not claim submission is complete merely because a draft was saved or a button was clicked; confirm the platform's receipt/status when submitting.

## Definition of done

The required local package is complete, internally consistent, within field and media limits, and checked against sourced event requirements. Report remaining unknown gates, missing assets and inaccessible links explicitly. Distinguish “ready to submit” from “submitted”; report confirmed platform status only when an authorized submission actually occurred.