Agents With Superpowers: Virtual Hackathon

You must be a hackathon organizer or judge to access that function.

Theme

Theme: Context Engineering for Intelligent Agents

This hackathon challenges builders to push the frontier of context engineering — designing agents that can reason, remember, and act with real-world awareness. Using Redis as the high-performance backbone for memory and state, participants will explore new architectures for adaptive intelligence: multi-agent collaboration (A2A), dynamic caching with Langcache, and context persistence that bridges the gap between short-term prompts and long-term understanding.

Detailed Schedule

Judging Criteria

These are the judging criteria we’ll use to evaluate projects:

Criterion	What’s Evaluated	Score (1‑5)
Running Code	Does the prototype actually run and demonstrate the claimed Redis‑driven context features?	1) Doesn’t run at all or crashes immediately. 2) Major functionality missing or constant errors. 3) Core flow works but with noticeable bugs. 4) Minor glitches, stable demo. 5) Fully functional, smooth, no bugs.
Innovation & Creativity	Novelty of the approach to context‑aware agents and use of Redis (e.g., unique A2A patterns, new caching strategies).	1) Straightforward copy of existing tutorials. 2) Minor tweak of a known pattern. 3) Adaptation of an existing idea to a new use‑case. 4) Creative combination of Redis features or original architecture. 5) Ground‑breaking method that reshapes how agents use context.
Real‑world Impact	Potential practical value: scalability, latency improvements, or solving a concrete problem with memory‑driven agents.	1) No clear use‑case; purely demo. 2) Interesting idea but limited applicability. 3) Solves a niche problem, moderate benefit. 4) Addresses a significant need with measurable gains. 5) Enables a transformative application (e.g., enterprise‑level multi‑agent orchestration).
Polish & Presentation	How clearly and confidently you communicate your build — both in your demo and documentation. This covers code readability, repo organization, deployment stability, and how well you explain the underlying architecture and reasoning behind your design choices..	1) Minimal documentation or unclear demo; project is difficult to run or understand. 2) Core idea is visible but rough; demo or explanation lacks coherence or usability. 3) Functional demo with partial clarity; README provides enough context to follow along. 4) Well-structured and reproducible project; clean walkthrough and clear explanation of how it works. 5) Production-quality polish; intuitive demo flow, thoughtful documentation, and strong narrative connecting concept to implementation.

Prizes

Already registered? Sign in

Quick Actions

Teams Chat Sponsors