Bring one measurable problem. We build the test, builders compete under published rules and scoring, and you pay only when a solution clears the agreed bar.
Public challenge boards
How it works
01
Tell us the input, the useful output, and what solving it is worth.
02
We agree the data, scoring, qualifying bar, and practical limits before launch.
03
Builders compete on the same evaluation. Only work that clears the bar can win.
If nothing clears the bar, there is no forced winner. The bounty rolls over or comes back.
For problem owners
Bring a workflow, footage, or dataset that matters. Builders return an answer, evidence, and run cost against the same test. Kitchen CCTV is one live example.
Challenges
Enter a live contest, inspect a finished result, or help shape the data for the next one.
For restaurants and cloud kitchens: answer hidden questions from CCTV-style footage about caps, handoff, bottlenecks, visible steps, and what was not visible.
3 scored entries
Write one Python function that beats Arnav on a fresh live market window — no finance background, no money, no API key.
Live participant board
Trading Round 1 and local dictation are past results. Kitchen CCTV remains open for entries.
Trading agents · closed Jul 2, 2026
QQQ ended the same window at -3.9%. Arnav's code is public and now runs as the benchmark every Round 2 entrant must beat.
Use or adapt this work
Need a version for your own workflow? Tell us the use case. We will confirm the licence, deployment, and support scope before quoting anything.
Discuss adapting it →We are shaping the test data and scoring now. Share representative data or register interest; the bounty and rules will be published before entries open.
Build a company research product that finds broad evidence, keeps it accurate and current, and makes the investment case easy to inspect.
What we need: Representative examples and trusted answers.
View brief →Turn sports footage or event feeds into accurate scores and game-state updates.
What we need: Sample footage or an event feed, plus trusted final scores and game states.
View brief →Estimate the odds of real-world events, explain the signal, and trade against a fixed benchmark.
What we need: Real questions, source odds, decision dates, and unambiguous outcomes.
View brief →Match purchase orders, invoices, and delivery records, then surface the exceptions that need action.
What we need: Anonymized purchase orders, invoices, delivery records, and resolved exceptions.
View brief →Have a problem? Post it as a challenge and we will turn it into a scored test.
Live boards
Sankeerth won Round 1 with a 69.92 final score on the verified Hindi+English review.
10 entered; 9 have current scores; 1 have previous sample scores; 2 have qualified for the prize.
| # | Entry | Score out of 100 | Run status |
|---|---|---|---|
| — | Final board closed · Sankeerth won the $500 prize | ||
| ▸ | RambleFix · benchmark · current 6-clip check · Aug 6Fresh six-clip engine benchmark on the same corpus as current entrant checks. All finals returned. | 58.77 | benchmark |
| 1 | Sankeerth · current 6-clip check · Aug 6The full check completed cleanly with every final returned. English was strong; mixed-language wording and required terms remain the gap. | 69.92 | current check |
| 2 | Arnav · current 6-clip check · Aug 6The full check completed cleanly and stayed above the refreshed benchmark; several English clips still lost critical facts. | 62.61 | current check |
| 3 | Anmol · current 6-clip check · Aug 13The revised run completed cleanly with every final returned. Mixed-language meaning was the main gap, and it finished just below the current benchmark. | 57.40 | current check |
| 4 | Vishal · current 6-clip check · Aug 6The full check completed cleanly with every final returned. Mixed-language facts and slower Hindi finals kept it below the benchmark. | 54.94 | current check |
| 5 | Rishchith · current 6-clip check · Aug 6The full check completed cleanly with every final returned. Mixed-language facts and final latency remain the gap. | 49.05 | current check |
| 6 | Sham · current 6-clip check · Aug 6The full check completed cleanly. Most English finals were usable, but one Hindi clip failed and mixed-language accuracy remains below the benchmark. | 48.88 | current check |
| 7 | Harsimran · current 6-clip check · Aug 6The full check completed cleanly with every final returned. One Hindi clip became repetitive and final latency remained high. | 46.32 | current check |
| 8 | Meet · current 6-clip check · Aug 6The full check completed cleanly, but two clips returned no final and median final latency was over six seconds. | 38.57 | current check |
| 9 | Vishwas · current 6-clip check · Aug 6The full check completed cleanly, but two clips returned no final and mixed-language accuracy remained the main gap. | 33.99 | current check |
| 10 | Darshan · previous 6-clip sample · old scoring · Jul 10The output was blank or unrelated, and all six clips hit the time limit. | 20.00 | previous sample |
Watch · 2 minutes
A problem you keep meaning to deal with — and the move most people don't have a habit for yet: turn it into a challenge, let builders compete on the same test, and give qualifying builders a public proof of what they built.
After a published result, builders can claim their profile. Qualified builders who want a signed certificate can share that profile on LinkedIn with what they built and liked or learned; sharing never changes the score. Browse public results →
Public proof
These are public examples of builders meeting a measurable bar. We publish the shared inputs, the score, the limits, and the work so the result can be checked.
Trading · published graph
Diagnostic graph from the Jul 7–27 live window; the round remained open.
Open the winner project →Hindi+English · current sample check
The measured comparison is Hindi+English, not English alone. On the current four-clip Builderr screen, Arnav scored 70.08 versus 60.63 for RambleFix; this is a dated sample check, not the full round result.
Builder
62.61
Local reference
58.77
See the builders, code, and measured results behind the public challenges.
Browse public results →Bring one AI or automation problem with an answer we can measure. We define the test, recruit builders, and run the competition. Here are a few examples:
If you can describe what goes in and what good looks like, we can usually turn it into a test in about a week, then run a few weeks of competition. The bounty is paid only when a solution clears the bar you approved.
How much should the bounty be? Size it to the problem. A simple way to think about it: if cracking it is worth a builder's weekend, the prize should feel worth that weekend. Around $1,000+ can work for a focused task; larger pools pull in stronger fields.
Send your problem →Two friends — product-and-tech geeks, both ex-founders — who hit this exact problem in our own work every week: you need an agent for something that matters, and no honest way to tell which approach is actually best. builderr is our fix.
We put real money on it. Each challenge has its own sponsor and a published test. We show what was run, what cleared the bar, and what builders can inspect afterward. No black box: the point is proof, not promises.
Current challenges have no platform fee. The bounty passes through to qualifying winners, minus agreed running costs. If no solution clears the bar, there is no forced winner. Have a problem we can score? Get in touch.
