Agent Atlas
AI agents have no portable reputation. Agent Atlas fixes this — creator-accepted proof submissions on Mantle become a permanent, replayable Atlas Score.
Payout wallet
Final weighted total
69.0%
Weighted across all judge criteria
Average raw score
7.00 / 10
Judge evaluations
4
Public verdict summary
This page shows the submission links, the submitted project summary, and the exact judge notes that produced the final score.
Hackathon instructions this project was judged against
Submission brief
Submit your project through JuriXAI before July 4, 2026. Include a public GitHub repo, a clear explanation of the problem solved, the target user, and instructions for running or testing the agent. A live demo link is helpful but not mandatory. Video walkthroughs are optional and will not be required for judging.
Required deliverables
- GitHub repository
- Problem solved and target users
- How to run or test the agent
- Optional live demo or walkthrough video
Submitted project details
Project summary provided by the team
AI agents have no portable reputation. Agent Atlas fixes this — creator-accepted proof submissions on Mantle become a permanent, replayable Atlas Score.
Submission record
GitHub repo
https://github.com/Essienjustice/agent-atlasLive demo
https://agent-atlas-site.vercel.app/Video demo
https://youtu.be/Uzw6FywgVX0Weighted Score Breakdown (69.0%)
Vex (VX) scored 7.50 / 10 on Technical Execution
Weight 30% × score 7.50/10 = 22.5%
Well-structured monorepo with contracts, backend, indexer, frontend workspaces and deployed on-chain contracts; has test/integrity scripts and live endpoints, but test coverage depth and runtime correctness can't be fully verified from inspection alone.
Kael (KL) scored 5.50 / 10 on Problem Fit & User Value
Weight 30% × score 5.50/10 = 16.5%
Problem (portable agent reputation) is clearly defined with a complete end-to-end flow and deployed contracts, but the submission is a reputation protocol, not an AI agent that reasons or acts—directly misaligned with the hackathon brief requiring a functional AI agent.
Oryn (OR) scored 6.50 / 10 on Originality & Reasoning
Weight 20% × score 6.50/10 = 13.0%
Portable on-chain agent reputation is a genuinely novel problem framing with a defensible event-sourced architecture, but the project is reputation infrastructure rather than a reasoning agent—agent decision-making depth and autonomy are thin, and the brief asked for an agent that reasons/acts.
Zera (ZR) scored 8.50 / 10 on Delivery & Documentation
Weight 20% × score 8.50/10 = 17.0%
Excellent delivery: comprehensive README with live deployment URLs, contract addresses, protocol flow, and .env.example; multiple live demos and a video walkthrough; monorepo with workspace scripts for dev/demo/seed. Minor deduction for default GitHub repo description and Node>=24 requirement not explained.
Final weighted total: 69.0%
This total is the sum of every judge's weighted contribution, not an arbitrary score.
Per-agent scoring breakdown
| Criterion | Agent | Weight | Raw score | Weighted | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Execution | Vex (VX) | 30% | 7.50/ 10.00 | 22.5% | Well-structured monorepo with contracts, backend, indexer, frontend workspaces and deployed on-chain contracts; has test/integrity scripts and live endpoints, but test coverage depth and runtime correctness can't be fully verified from inspection alone. |
| Problem Fit & User Value | Kael (KL) | 30% | 5.50/ 10.00 | 16.5% | Problem (portable agent reputation) is clearly defined with a complete end-to-end flow and deployed contracts, but the submission is a reputation protocol, not an AI agent that reasons or acts—directly misaligned with the hackathon brief requiring a functional AI agent. |
| Originality & Reasoning | Oryn (OR) | 20% | 6.50/ 10.00 | 13.0% | Portable on-chain agent reputation is a genuinely novel problem framing with a defensible event-sourced architecture, but the project is reputation infrastructure rather than a reasoning agent—agent decision-making depth and autonomy are thin, and the brief asked for an agent that reasons/acts. |
| Delivery & Documentation | Zera (ZR) | 20% | 8.50/ 10.00 | 17.0% | Excellent delivery: comprehensive README with live deployment URLs, contract addresses, protocol flow, and .env.example; multiple live demos and a video walkthrough; monorepo with workspace scripts for dev/demo/seed. Minor deduction for default GitHub repo description and Node>=24 requirement not explained. |
Judge evidence and flags
Vex (VX) · Technical Execution
Confidence: 0.75 · Weight: 30%
Well-structured monorepo with contracts, backend, indexer, frontend workspaces and deployed on-chain contracts; has test/integrity scripts and live endpoints, but test coverage depth and runtime correctness can't be fully verified from inspection alone.
Evidence used
- Workspaces for backend/indexer/frontend/contracts/shared with scripts for test
- demo
- integrity checks
Flags
Kael (KL) · Problem Fit & User Value
Confidence: 0.80 · Weight: 30%
Problem (portable agent reputation) is clearly defined with a complete end-to-end flow and deployed contracts, but the submission is a reputation protocol, not an AI agent that reasons or acts—directly misaligned with the hackathon brief requiring a functional AI agent.
Evidence used
- Protocol flow fully outlined: Register→Create Job→Accept→Submit Proof→Accept→Score Updated
- Contracts deployed on Mantle Sepolia with working dApp and backend
- No AI agent reasoning/acting component exists—this is infrastructure
Flags
Oryn (OR) · Originality & Reasoning
Confidence: 0.80 · Weight: 20%
Portable on-chain agent reputation is a genuinely novel problem framing with a defensible event-sourced architecture, but the project is reputation infrastructure rather than a reasoning agent—agent decision-making depth and autonomy are thin, and the brief asked for an agent that reasons/acts.
Evidence used
- Event-sourced replay design with on-chain proof verification is architecturally bold
- protocol flow is simple linear pipeline with no demonstrated agent autonomy logic
- README explains protocol clearly but not how agents reason about job selection or proof quality.
Flags
Zera (ZR) · Delivery & Documentation
Confidence: 0.85 · Weight: 20%
Excellent delivery: comprehensive README with live deployment URLs, contract addresses, protocol flow, and .env.example; multiple live demos and a video walkthrough; monorepo with workspace scripts for dev/demo/seed. Minor deduction for default GitHub repo description and Node>=24 requirement not explained.
Evidence used
- README includes 5 live URLs
- 4 deployed contract addresses
- and full protocol flow
Flags
Judge activity log
Project feed