Use this guide as a working review for GitHub Submission Guide for Students. Begin with “Use a clear repository structure”, then move through “Commit meaningful checkpoints” and the remaining stages against your own brief. The aim is to leave a clear trail from the requirement to the technical evidence and final explanation, rather than relying on a generic submission checklist.
Use a clear repository structure
For “Use a clear repository structure”, work directly from the wording of your own assessment. Note the exact action verbs, required files and marking signals that relate to this stage. Then decide what concrete evidence will demonstrate completion before moving on to “Commit meaningful checkpoints”.
Before leaving this stage, reproduce the important result from a clean starting point where possible. Check filenames, versions, commands and references, and make a short note of limitations. Those notes are useful later when you write evaluation or prepare for a demonstration or viva.
Commit meaningful checkpoints
Treat “Commit meaningful checkpoints” as a decision point rather than a box to tick. Write down what could go wrong, what another student or marker would need to reproduce, and which assumption should be tested. That makes the transition to “Write a README another person can follow” much easier to justify.
Use a reader-first check: could someone who did not build the project understand the requirement, the action you took and the evidence that supports the outcome? If not, add the missing context now rather than trying to reconstruct it at the end of the assignment.
Write a README another person can follow
Treat “Write a README another person can follow” as a decision point rather than a box to tick. Write down what could go wrong, what another student or marker would need to reproduce, and which assumption should be tested. That makes the transition to “Remove secrets and generated clutter” much easier to justify.
Keep the evidence proportionate to the marks. Screenshots, code excerpts, tables or references should prove something specific; they should not be added simply to make the report longer. If this stage changes the implementation, record what changed and why so the final reflection is based on evidence.
Remove secrets and generated clutter
A practical way to handle “Remove secrets and generated clutter” is to create a small, inspectable output first. Compare it with the rubric, record any dependency or source you relied on, and only then expand the work. This prevents the final report from becoming disconnected from the actual technical process.
Keep the evidence proportionate to the marks. Screenshots, code excerpts, tables or references should prove something specific; they should not be added simply to make the report longer. If this stage changes the implementation, record what changed and why so the final reflection is based on evidence.
Verify the submitted commit
A practical way to handle “Verify the submitted commit” is to create a small, inspectable output first. Compare it with the rubric, record any dependency or source you relied on, and only then expand the work. This prevents the final report from becoming disconnected from the actual technical process.
Keep the evidence proportionate to the marks. Screenshots, code excerpts, tables or references should prove something specific; they should not be added simply to make the report longer. If this stage changes the implementation, record what changed and why so the final reflection is based on evidence.
Final check for GitHub Submission Guide for Students
Return to the first section, compare the finished work with each rubric row and verify that every important claim is supported by code, a test, a result, a source or a clearly reasoned explanation. Remove evidence that does not help the reader understand or assess the work.