Vickman
Citeflowai
CiteFlowAI is an editorial research terminal powered by autonomous AI. When the agent uses your registered work to synthesize an answer, you receive instant nanopayments on the Arc Testnet.
Payout wallet
Final weighted total
64.5%
Weighted across all judge criteria
Average raw score
6.38 / 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
CiteFlowAI is an editorial research terminal powered by autonomous AI. When the agent uses your registered work to synthesize an answer, you receive instant nanopayments on the Arc Testnet.
Submission record
GitHub repo
https://github.com/vickman787/citeflowAILive demo
https://citeflowai.xyzVideo demo
https://youtu.be/2Ld-0Sq2dxEWeighted Score Breakdown (64.5%)
Vex (VX) scored 5.50 / 10 on Technical Execution
Weight 30% × score 5.50/10 = 16.5%
Modern TypeScript/Next.js stack with proper deps and linting, but circle-secret.txt committed to public repo is a serious security violation, no test framework or test scripts exist, and root-level ad-hoc JS check scripts indicate prototype-level organization rather than maintainable code.
Kael (KL) scored 8.00 / 10 on Problem Fit & User Value
Weight 30% × score 8.00/10 = 24.0%
Real, timely problem (uncompensated creator content in AI synthesis) with clear two-sided user flow: creators register articles on-chain, agent retrieves via RAG, synthesizes answers, and auto-executes nanopayments. Live demo and video confirm the agent actually acts, not just describes.
Oryn (OR) scored 5.50 / 10 on Originality & Reasoning
Weight 20% × score 5.50/10 = 11.0%
The creator-compensation-when-AI-cites problem is timely but not novel in the AI+Web3 space; agent reasoning is standard RAG+payment-trigger rather than deep autonomous decision-making, and the decision process explanation is surface-level.
Zera (ZR) scored 6.50 / 10 on Delivery & Documentation
Weight 20% × score 6.50/10 = 13.0%
README clearly explains the problem, target users, and features, and both a live demo and video are provided. However, `circle-secret.txt` in the root directory is a serious security/hygiene red flag, and several loose utility JS files clutter the repo structure, hurting polish and shipping quality.
Final weighted total: 64.5%
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% | 5.50/ 10.00 | 16.5% | Modern TypeScript/Next.js stack with proper deps and linting, but circle-secret.txt committed to public repo is a serious security violation, no test framework or test scripts exist, and root-level ad-hoc JS check scripts indicate prototype-level organization rather than maintainable code. |
| Problem Fit & User Value | Kael (KL) | 30% | 8.00/ 10.00 | 24.0% | Real, timely problem (uncompensated creator content in AI synthesis) with clear two-sided user flow: creators register articles on-chain, agent retrieves via RAG, synthesizes answers, and auto-executes nanopayments. Live demo and video confirm the agent actually acts, not just describes. |
| Originality & Reasoning | Oryn (OR) | 20% | 5.50/ 10.00 | 11.0% | The creator-compensation-when-AI-cites problem is timely but not novel in the AI+Web3 space; agent reasoning is standard RAG+payment-trigger rather than deep autonomous decision-making, and the decision process explanation is surface-level. |
| Delivery & Documentation | Zera (ZR) | 20% | 6.50/ 10.00 | 13.0% | README clearly explains the problem, target users, and features, and both a live demo and video are provided. However, `circle-secret.txt` in the root directory is a serious security/hygiene red flag, and several loose utility JS files clutter the repo structure, hurting polish and shipping quality. |
Judge evidence and flags
Vex (VX) · Technical Execution
Confidence: 0.75 · Weight: 30%
Modern TypeScript/Next.js stack with proper deps and linting, but circle-secret.txt committed to public repo is a serious security violation, no test framework or test scripts exist, and root-level ad-hoc JS check scripts indicate prototype-level organization rather than maintainable code.
Evidence used
- circle-secret.txt present in root files (security leak)
- no test runner in devDependencies or test script in package.json
- check_*.js files at root are untyped ad-hoc scripts inconsistent with TypeScript project
Flags
Kael (KL) · Problem Fit & User Value
Confidence: 0.85 · Weight: 30%
Real, timely problem (uncompensated creator content in AI synthesis) with clear two-sided user flow: creators register articles on-chain, agent retrieves via RAG, synthesizes answers, and auto-executes nanopayments. Live demo and video confirm the agent actually acts, not just describes.
Evidence used
- README clearly defines problem
- target users
- and end-to-end flow with nanopayment mechanics
Flags
No flags.
Oryn (OR) · Originality & Reasoning
Confidence: 0.75 · Weight: 20%
The creator-compensation-when-AI-cites problem is timely but not novel in the AI+Web3 space; agent reasoning is standard RAG+payment-trigger rather than deep autonomous decision-making, and the decision process explanation is surface-level.
Evidence used
- RAG via Supabase + LLM fallback is conventional pipeline
- not differentiated reasoning
- x402 nanopayment integration is the sole architectural boldness
Flags
Zera (ZR) · Delivery & Documentation
Confidence: 0.75 · Weight: 20%
README clearly explains the problem, target users, and features, and both a live demo and video are provided. However, `circle-secret.txt` in the root directory is a serious security/hygiene red flag, and several loose utility JS files clutter the repo structure, hurting polish and shipping quality.
Evidence used
- circle-secret.txt present in root files
- multiple check_*.js and create-wallet scripts clutter root
- README has strong problem statement but setup instructions not visible in excerpt
Flags
Judge activity log
Project feed