Skip to content

Project Handoff

Submission
Team
Due
Spring, week 10
Weight
5% of the spring grade

The last thing your team ships.

In three weeks, your team stops existing and the project keeps going: with your partner, a maintainer community, next year’s capstone team, or you. The handoff is professional knowledge transfer, and the bar is concrete: a stranger with relevant technical background can run and maintain the project using only this document and the repository. Teams that kept their living docs healthy all year will find this assignment is mostly assembly; that was the plan.

A partner-facing handoff document (2 to 4 pages, PDF, also committed as docs/handoff.md) containing the sections below, submitted with written partner confirmation. Student-driven projects use their mentor or instructor as the confirming client. A non-responsive partner does not tank your grade: after two documented attempts, an instructor or mentor confirms instead and the criterion is scored on your documented attempts.

What the project is and what problem it solves; the current deployment or delivery state (is it running, where, how stable); what is and is not included in this handoff, with reasons; and a contact for each team member for follow-up questions.

From nothing to running: prerequisites with versions, copy-pasteable install and build commands, how to run the tests, how to run a local development environment, how to deploy (or a pointer to the runbook), and the pitfalls you know about with their fixes. This should largely already exist in README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md; the handoff points at it and fills gaps rather than duplicating it. Verify it: have the team member who least knows the setup path (or your partner) execute it clean and fix what breaks.

3. Known Issues, Limitations, and Future Work

Section titled “3. Known Issues, Limitations, and Future Work”

An honest, prioritized accounting: open bugs with severities (link the tracker), features that are partial or fragile, technical debt and whether it was intentional, a prioritized backlog of future work, and every credential, API key, or access permission that must be transferred, with its transfer status. “No known issues” is not a credible state for real software.

Links into the repository’s living documentation, each confirmed current as of handoff: docs/requirements.md, docs/design.md, docs/shipped.md, and docs/risks.md, plus docs/rfcs/ for the decision record. These replace the standalone requirements and design attachments of past years; the Repo Checkpoints kept them honest, and the forward-looking section of your Project Retrospective tells the successor how to read them. See the Documentation guide.

5. Handoff Checklist and Partner Confirmation

Section titled “5. Handoff Checklist and Partner Confirmation”

Complete this checklist in the document; unchecked items get a reason and a follow-up plan:

  • Repository access transferred to the partner, kept by the team, or archived, per agreement
  • Credentials and secrets transferred securely, none committed to the repo
  • Deployment environment access transferred or documented
  • Open issues triaged and documented
  • README.md and the living docs current and accurate
  • Partner has confirmed receipt in writing

The written confirmation (quoted email or signed note, included in the document) must say the partner can access the repository, can run the project, and understands what maintaining it will take.

Section titled “6. Release Consent and Archive Declaration”

The school may share project archives with future students and sponsors as examples of student work; this is optional and separate from your partner’s rights to the software. Include a declaration listing every team member as Consenting or Not Consenting, note any NDA or partner restriction on sharing, and state where the project archive lives (the repository itself, or the agreed sanitized export if your project is under NDA). One dissent or restriction means the archive is not shared; the declaration is still required.

Criterion Points Outcome
Overview and status: a newcomer is oriented in half a page, exclusions and contacts explicit 15 SO3
Setup: complete, copy-pasteable, and actually verified by a fresh run 30 SO2
Known issues and future work: prioritized, severities and credential transfer covered, honest tone 20 SO6
Living docs: all four linked and current, decision record reachable 10 SO1
Checklist, written partner confirmation, and release-consent declaration all complete 25 SO4

AI use: AI may draft and assemble from your repository; that is what the living docs were for. Do not let it invent steps, links, or artifact locations: every command and URL in this document must work, because the person who discovers otherwise cannot ask you anymore.

Planning for Maintenance and Long-Term Support for known issues and future work, and Describe your API Reference for the living-docs criterion.

By project category:

Category Activities
FOSS Software Release and Versioning. Your handoff is mostly upstream already; what you owe is the state of any unmerged work
Research Make Your Artifact Reproducible. For a research project this is the handoff: the next student has to get your numbers back
Consultancy Planning for Maintenance and Long-Term Support. You graduate and the system stays, so for the partner the runbook largely is the product
New Product or Game Describe your API Reference and User Manual if real users remain

Browse design and communication when these run out.