The AI project grader for every component students turn in
Projects come in pieces — a write-up, a slide deck, a video, a reflection, an artifact. GradeWithAI scores each component against your rubric, rolls them into one final grade, and writes feedback that names the specific criterion each score came from. Every grade is editable before anything reaches students.
Free plan · Multi-component rubrics · Group or individual grading
Trusted by 10,000+ teachers for project grading
Why project grading eats weekends
Projects are worth it to assign — and brutal to grade.
Good projects are the best work students do. They are also the hardest thing to grade honestly. Each project has several deliverables graded on several criteria; each student contributes differently to group work; each rubric row can swing a grade a full letter if you interpret it loosely. Most teachers end up either rushing the rubric or losing the weekend. An AI project grader closes that gap — not by replacing your judgment, but by drafting the rubric pass so you can focus on the parts that need a call.
- Too many deliverables, too little time
- A single project might include a proposal, a product, a slide deck, a reflection, and a presentation. Grading all five for thirty students with the same focus is what breaks teachers.
- Rubrics with too many rows
- Project rubrics are long — content, craft, process, presentation, collaboration. Applying all of them consistently from project #1 to project #30 is nearly impossible by hand.
- Group work is hard to grade fairly
- One student did 70% of the work; one barely showed up. A group grade obscures that. Per-student feedback is what makes the grade feel fair — and that is exactly what nobody has time to write.
Per-component scoring
A project grader that scores each deliverable, then rolls it up
Drop in every piece of the project — write-ups, slide decks, video files, reflections, artifacts — and the AI project grader scores each component against the rubric row it belongs to. You see a component-by-component breakdown, not just a final number, so students know exactly which piece earned which score. The roll-up to the final grade is editable, so your judgment is always the last word.
Project total
83 / 100
- Research & evidence
- 70%
- Written product
- 88%
- Visual / creative
- 96%
- Creativity & originality
- 80%
Feedback pack · Student sees per-component scores and which component dragged the grade down.
- Any format in one project
- Google Docs, Word files, PDFs, slide decks, video transcripts, scanned posters, and web links all feed into the same graded project.
- Criterion-specific comments
- Each rubric row gets its own feedback citing the part of the project that earned (or lost) the point — not one generic paragraph for the whole submission.
- Weighted roll-up, your formula
- Weight content, craft, process, and presentation however your department grades projects. The AI uses your weights, not a fixed template.
Example rubric
A project rubric that covers content and process
Project rubrics run long because good projects have many parts worth grading. Here is the four-criterion default the AI uses when you generate one from the prompt — edit it, add rows, or replace it with your department's rubric before the first project is scored.
Project grading rubric · AI-generated
Content knowledge
6 ptsDepth and accuracy of the content — claims, evidence, reasoning, and subject-specific knowledge demonstrated in the deliverables.
- Exceeds
- Accurate, specific content that extends beyond the minimum; evidence is cited and reasoning is clear.
- Meets
- Accurate content at the expected depth with supporting evidence for the main claims.
- Approaching
- Mostly accurate but surface-level; evidence thin or missing; reasoning underdeveloped.
Craft & design
4 ptsVisual design, organization, and craftsmanship of the final deliverables — layout, editing, formatting, artifact quality.
- Exceeds
- Polished, intentional design that supports the content; visuals, typography, and pacing all serve the project.
- Meets
- Clean, readable, purposeful design with minor rough edges.
- Approaching
- Design distracts from content — cluttered slides, illegible text, uneven editing — or final artifact is visibly rushed.
Process & research
5 ptsEvidence of planning, research, iteration, and revision across the project — not just the final product.
- Exceeds
- Clear record of research and iteration; the final product reflects changes made in response to feedback.
- Meets
- Process artifacts show real planning and at least one meaningful revision.
- Approaching
- Process appears linear and last-minute; little evidence of revision or genuine research.
Communication & presentation
5 ptsClarity and effectiveness of how the project is communicated — slides, script, narration, demo, or presentation.
- Exceeds
- Confident, well-paced presentation; audience leaves with a clear understanding of the project and its significance.
- Meets
- Clear communication of the main ideas with minor pacing or clarity issues.
- Approaching
- Audience has to work to follow; key ideas are missing, buried, or delivered unclearly.
Group-work support
Grade group projects without losing individual accountability
Group projects have two grading problems: what grade the group earns, and how fairly that grade reflects what each student actually did. The AI project grader lets you score group deliverables once, then attach per-student adjustments based on peer-evaluation data, contribution logs, or your own judgment. Every student gets a grade with an explanation tied to their role.
- Question 1
- 92%
- On track
- Question 2
- 78%
- On track
- Question 3
- 41%
- Reteach
- Question 4
- 85%
- On track
- Question 5
- 36%
- Reteach
- Question 6
- 69%
- Watch
Reteach focus · Questions 3 and 5 flagged for class-wide review tomorrow.
- Group score + individual adjustments
- Score the shared deliverables once; override any student's grade when their contribution warrants it, with feedback explaining why.
- Peer-evaluation imports
- Drop in a peer-eval spreadsheet and the AI factors contribution ratings into the individual roll-up.
- Class-wide analytics
- See criterion-level distribution across the whole class so you know which rubric row to reteach before the next project.
Sample AI feedback
Rubric-specific comments, not generic praise
Here is the AI feedback on the content-knowledge criterion of a capstone project proposal. Notice it quotes the student's actual writing, names the rubric language, and gives a concrete revision path.
Assignment prompt
Design a community-level intervention to address food insecurity in a chosen neighborhood. Submit a written proposal, a stakeholder map, and a five-slide presentation.
Student submission
Food insecurity is a big problem in many neighborhoods. Our intervention is a community garden that will give people access to fresh food. This will help because people will have vegetables to eat and will save money on groceries.
AI feedback · Content knowledge
3 / 6The intervention itself is reasonable, but content knowledge lands in the “Approaching” band because the problem framing stays at the general level. “Big problem in many neighborhoods” applies to nearly any context and does not show the research a capstone expects. The stakeholder map helps some, but the proposal needs to name the neighborhood, cite specific indicators (food-access score, average distance to a full-service grocery), and identify which of those indicators a community garden actually moves. Right now the garden is a solution looking for a problem, rather than the other way around.
Revision tip · Try grounding the proposal in the specific neighborhood data: which census tract, what the USDA food-access score is there, and what barriers a community garden actually removes vs. leaves in place. A proposal lives or dies by the specificity of the problem it is solving.
- Quotes the student's actual work
- Feedback points to specific sentences and claims the student wrote, not vague impressions.
- Names the rubric language
- Comments reuse the criteria you set, so students learn what the rubric actually asks for.
- Suggests a concrete revision
- Every comment ends with a specific next step the student can take on the next draft.
Built for project grading
Every detail, handled
- Any project type
- Capstones, PBL units, science fair, history fair, engineering design, IB Personal Project and MYP projects, AP Seminar IRR and IWA — all graded on the rubric you supply.
- Multi-file submissions
- Written proposal, slide deck, video transcript, scanned poster, web link — every artifact feeds into the same graded project.
- AI-use detection on every write-up
- Each written component runs through AI detection at grade time with a 0–100% score and highlighted passages — no separate tool, no extra cost on the free plan.
- LMS sync
- Push project scores, per-criterion comments, and final grades back to Canvas SpeedGrader, Google Classroom, or Schoology in one click.
Why teachers switch
The AI project grader that gives projects the feedback they deserve
Teachers who switch to GradeWithAI as their AI project grader report getting the rubric pass done in an afternoon instead of a weekend — and the feedback students receive gets longer and more specific, because the AI handles the mechanical criteria so you can focus on judgment calls and individual adjustments.
Per-component scores, not one lump grade
Rubric applied consistently from project #1 to project #30
Individual adjustments on group work with clear reasoning
Criterion-level class analytics to guide the next project
AI-use detection on every written component
Every score and comment editable before grades go live
“I've really enjoyed using the GradeWithAI program. It saves me a ton of time, especially when I have class sizes of 35 or 36 students times five.”
Why it matters for project grading
Teachers who switch to GradeWithAI as their AI project grader report getting the rubric pass done in an afternoon instead of a weekend — and the feedback students receive gets longer and more specific, because the AI handles the mechanical criteria so you can focus on judgment calls and individual adjustments.
How project grading works
From submitted to graded in an afternoon
Projects have more moving parts than a single essay, but the grading flow is still three steps.
- 1
Collect every component
Pull from Canvas, Google Classroom, or a shared drive folder. Drag in slides, PDFs, video transcripts, and image files. Every student's full submission lands in one project record.
- 2
Lock the rubric and weights
Use your department rubric, generate one from the project brief, or start from the four-criterion default. Set weights per row so the roll-up matches your gradebook formula.
- 3
Review, adjust, return
Per-component scores and criterion comments are drafted for you. Override individual students, adjust for group-work contribution, then push grades and feedback to the LMS.
Also covered
Project grading across every course
The same AI project grader handles every kind of project students build — a few of the workflows it covers:
- Assignment grader
- One grader for every assignment you collect — essays, short answers, worksheets, projects, lab reports — all in the same queue.
- Essay grader
- Project write-ups, research proposals, and capstone papers graded against your rubric with quoted evidence and AI-use detection.
- AP Seminar grader
- AP Seminar IRR, IWA, IMP, and TMP graded row-by-row against the College Board rubrics, including per-student scoring on team deliverables.
- Writing grader
- Reflections, journals, and short writing components of larger projects graded against your rubric with line-level feedback.
Simple, transparent pricing
Start free and upgrade when you’re ready.
Free
Perfect for trying out AI grading.
- 25 AI requests/month
- Google Classroom integration
- Canvas integration
- Google Forms grading
- Handwritten assignment support
- AI rubric generation
- Unlimited Kleo AI assistant
Pro
Unlimited grading for dedicated educators.
- Unlimited AI requests
- Automated submissions grading
- AI detection on every submission
- Custom instructions
- Everything in Free
Schools & Districts
CustomEnterprise features for your entire school.
- Microsoft Teams integration
- Bulk user management
- Admin dashboard & analytics
- SSO / SAML authentication
- Dedicated onboarding & training
- Everything in Pro
Secure by design.
Built for K-12.
FERPA-aligned workflows, encryption everywhere, and no student data in model training. Ready for your district’s IT review from day one.
- FERPA-aligned
- SOC 2 practices
- AES-256 at rest
- TLS 1.2+ in transit
- Role-based access
- No AI training
- FERPA-aligned by default
- Role-based access and audit trails protect student submissions and grades.
- Never used for training
- Student work is processed for grading only — never used to train AI models.
- District-ready docs
- Security documentation and procurement support ready for your IT team.
Questions, answered
Project grading FAQ
Answers to the questions we hear most from teachers using GradeWithAI for project grading. Start a free account and explore in minutes, or email john@gradewithai.com for a fast reply.
Capstones, project-based learning units, science fair, history fair, engineering design challenges, IB Personal Project and MYP projects, AP Seminar IRR and IWA, genius-hour projects, research reports, and multimedia presentations. If you have a rubric and the deliverables are in a readable format — text, slides, video transcript, or image — the AI can grade it.
By assignment
More grading guides
Ready to try the AI project grader that finally makes grading projects sustainable?
Join teachers grading capstones, PBL, and group projects in an afternoon — with better feedback than before, not worse, and the gradebook synced in one click.
Free plan available · No credit card required
Teachers using GradeWithAI report grading in a fraction of the time, with richer feedback for every student.
