Pioneer Collective · Hackyeah2026/PlanSafe
A deeply engineered and honestly scoped civil defence evacuation tool whose planning-to-resident loop demonstrably exists in code and runs on a live deployment, held back by missing hardening such as authentication, persistence and offline continuity, and by an evidence pack that does not let the jury verify the interface.
Scenario branching, a browser-side WebGPU crowd simulation, and the closed loop from coordinator planning to QR-published resident shelter assignment address a real emergency coordination gap. Crowd simulation itself is a known genre, so the novelty sits mainly in the workflow connection, which supports the middle score.
Members disagree here: scores range by 2.0 points.Two of three members found the tool squarely civil defence: coordinators test evacuations under degraded conditions such as blocked passages and shelter overload, and residents receive routing built on real Krakow census and OSM data. Member C's stricter reading, that the demo must show services fully down, is a fair reservation, but the demonstrated degraded-condition planning and resident routing support the stronger fit.
Members disagree here: scores range by 2.0 points.Staff need only a browser and residents only a phone, with a guided tour and real data. The prototype is untested with real emergency planners, coordinator endpoints lack authentication, state is in-memory, and the resident flow fails without connectivity.
The code shows deliberate crisis readability choices such as speed color coding, heatmaps, themes, and resident handling of degraded inputs. None of the six screenshots is described and the live page renders only a loading shell, so visual quality could not be verified from the pack.
The core claims exist in code rather than mocks: WebGPU shaders with a CPU engine and parity tests, publish, assign and check-in endpoints, QR generation, 58 test files, CI, and a live deployment returning HTTP 200. Gaps include an empty worker stub, no persistence, and a deck claim of 139 tests against 57 measured.
Members disagree here: scores range by 2.0 points.claude:glm-5.3-flash77.590% agreedots-studio/dots-3-note-preview:free74.090% agreeinclusionai/ling-3.0-flash-sante:free61.070% agreeclaude:glm-5.3–judgeThe council, the evidence pack, the prompts and the queue are all on GitHub. If a review helped you, a star helps other teams find it.