loading

FOR HK HACKS NOW!

Our Purpose

HK Hacks 2026 (hosted by CIS) is a fun event to showcase your coding skills, develop an entrepreneurial mind, network with other tech enthusiasts, and potentially win prizes! We welcome individuals of different skill sets and backgrounds to build projects that solve an assigned problem within a time frame.

The goal is to develop a functional solution to the to-be-revealed problem by the end of the Hackathon. Throughout the experience, you can interact with successful professionals from the technology field, receive their feedback, gain unique opportunities to unleash your creativity, and meet new friends! Sign up for free now!

What to expect

The event will consist of these parts:
- Presentations
- Workshops
- Guest speakers
- Award ceremony


Your team's aim is:
- Create a functional solution to an assigned global problem
- The specific problem will be announced during the opening ceremony on March 14th, and your team will have 7 days to create and present a project


*More details related to the rules and workshops will be posted closer to the start date.

Judges, official timeline, and more coming soon...

January 10th

Sign ups open! Sign up at the link here. Find a few friends and challenge the hackathon together, or sign up by yourself -- we'll find a team for you.

March 7th

Sign ups close, one week before the Hackathon. Single participants will be grouped, and each team will be designated a peer mentor who will guide and support them.

March 10th

Participants will receive an email with additional information, including competition rules and teams.

March 14th

Commencement of HK Hacks! Participants will arrive at the Chinese International School campus from 9 a.m. for the opening ceremony, where the theme and problem statement will be announced. In-person workshops will be hosted by professionals from tech fields, entrepreneurs, and educators to provide participants with the skills necessary to create their own project.

March 14th to March 21st

Start creating! Participants have this week to plan, create, and submit their projects together with their teams. Online resources curated by professionals will be provided throughout the week to assist teams.

March 21st

This in-person event (including the 48-hour hackathon!) will take place from beginning at 9 am , at WXKJ L/5 in New Tower, CIS. It includes a presentation, Q&A session, guest speaker panel, courtyard performances, group bonding events, and finally the Award Ceremony.

Criteria

Formula for calculating score: (A+B+C+D)*E
Criteria Grading Scale
Criterion A: Technical Knowledge (0-6, 40%)
  • This criteria refers to the technical knowledge that the presenters demonstrate from a coding perspective.
  • Generally, knowledge can be demonstrated in two main ways:
  • 1.Actual Execution (e.g. writing efficient, concise code)
  • 2. Conceptual Depth (e.g. integrating new concepts such as machine learning)
 0
The code shows minimal technical depth. Logic is basic or heavily reliant on templates/tutorials. Structure may be disorganized with poor readability and limited commenting.		 1-2
The code demonstrates some understanding of intermediate concepts but lacks optimization or clean architecture. Some modularity and documentation are present, though inconsistent. Some tools are used to assist the product, although only to a partial extent. 		3-4
Code shows clear structure and thoughtful design. Implements efficient logic or data handling; complexity is appropriate for the challenge. Use of external frameworks, APIs, or abstractions is well executed. AI is appropriately used to enhance the user experience. Other existing tools are adequately used to assist the product.		 5-6
Code demonstrates advanced problem-solving and strong architectural thinking. Integrates multiple technologies or approaches seamlessly. Exceptionally clean, efficient, and well-documented. Use of artificial intelligence goes beyond importing a preexisting LLM or AI and giving it a prompt. Other tools are used excellently, demonstrating ingenuity in solving the problem / addressing the prompt.
Criterion B: User Experience (0-3, 20%)
  • This criterion refers to the way that the program is constructed, and how enticing the program would be for users.
  • This includes aspects such as the visual appearance, the app’s layouts, and how well the app’s functions work with the interface.
 0
Interface is confusing or lacks design consistency. Navigation is unclear; layout and aesthetics are underdeveloped.		 1
The UI is functional but somewhat cluttered or inconsistent. Users can navigate, but interactions lack polish or accessibility.		 2
The design is visually appealing and user-friendly. Clear navigation, consistent layout, and responsive behavior across devices.		 3
The UI/UX offers an outstanding experience — visually cohesive, intuitive, accessible, and responsive. Demonstrates thoughtful user-centered design principles.
Criterion C: Plausibility and Effectiveness (0-2, 13%)
  • This criterion refers to the potential a program has to create change.
  • First, is the program novel or interesting enough to attract users?
  • Second, if the program was used, how effective would it be at creating change within the target area?
  • Third, how plausible is creating and implementing this software/hardware product?
 0
The end product is completely inapplicable as a solution to the prompt. The product doesn’t consider real world applications and implementation.		 1
The product is somewhat applicable as a solution. Most aspects of the product are realistic to execute. Certain parts of the product may hinder its effectiveness.		 2
The end product is an exceptional and applicable solution to the problem. The product considers real world problems with implementation and directly addresses them. No aspects of the product hinder its effectiveness.
Criterion D: Functionality (0-4, 27%)
  • Criteria D refers to how complete, reliable, and well-integrated the program’s features are.
  • This includes whether the core functions of the product work as intended, how well different components interact with one another, and the overall stability of the program during use.
  • Higher scores are awarded to products that move beyond a basic prototype, demonstrating polished, well-tested functionality with minimal errors or incomplete features.
0
The end product is completely inapplicable as a solution to the prompt. The product doesn’t consider real world applications and implementation.		 1
The product is somewhat applicable as a solution. Most aspects of the product are realistic to execute. Certain parts of the product may hinder its effectiveness.		 2
The end product is an exceptional and applicable solution to the problem. The product considers real world problems with implementation and directly addresses them. No aspects of the product hinder its effectiveness.
Criterion E: Adherence to Hackathon Prompt (multiplier)
  • Criteria E evaluates how effectively the end product addresses the given hackathon prompt. This includes the relevance of the chosen product to the prompt, the appropriateness of the implemented features, and the clarity of justification for the proposed solution.
  • A higher multiplier is awarded to products that directly and meaningfully engage with the prompt, demonstrating a clear and logical connection between the problem statement and the final implementation.
0.25
The end product does not solve / address the proposed prompt / issue. The code and features incorporated are entirely unnecessary and out of focus. The choice of proposed product is poorly justified.		 0.50
The end product partially addresses the proposed prompt by responding to the core issue identified. Most of the code and features incorporated are appropriate and relevant to the problem, though some features are unnecessary or lack refinement. While the solution does not fully resolve all aspects of the prompt, the overall choice of product is somewhat justified and demonstrates a reasonable attempt to align the implementation with the intended purpose. 		0.75
The end product partially addresses / solves the proposed prompt / issue. The code and features are mostly appropriate, with some features being unnecessary and/or unrefined. The choice of proposed product is somewhat justified. 		1
The end product directly addresses / solves the proposed prompt / issue. The code and features are appropriately chosen, and demonstrate creativity and innovation. The choice of proposed product is completely justified, making logical sense.