Badge criteria are the backbone of any credible digital badge program. They're the answer to the most important question any skeptical employer, institution, or colleague will ask when they see a badge: "What exactly did this person have to do to earn it?"
Weak criteria produce weak credentials. When a badge can be earned simply by showing up, or when the criteria page reads like marketing copy rather than a genuine performance standard, the badge loses value, not just for the issuer, but for every earner who holds it. Strong criteria, by contrast, make a badge worth displaying and worth verifying.
This guide covers how to write badge criteria and assessment rubrics that are specific, observable, rigorous, and trusted. We include a practical process, before-and-after examples, a full rubric template, and the mistakes that undermine most badge programs.
These two terms are often conflated, but they serve different functions:
Criteria are always needed. Rubrics are needed when the assessment involves subjective evaluation of evidence, a project, portfolio, essay, presentation, or observed performance. For objective assessments (pass a test with a score of 80% or above), a rubric may not be necessary beyond specifying the passing threshold.
Start by writing a 2-3 sentence badge description that answers: What does this badge certify? What is the earner capable of doing as a result of earning it?
Use language from your organization's competency framework, job families, or skills taxonomy if you have one. This connects the badge to recognized professional language and makes it more meaningful to employers.
Example description for a data analysis badge:
This badge recognizes professionals who can independently collect, clean, and analyze structured data using industry-standard tools, and who can communicate data-driven insights effectively to technical and non-technical stakeholders. Earners have demonstrated competency in data pipeline construction, statistical analysis, and visualization.
Before writing criteria, decide what evidence earners must produce. Common evidence types:
Competency and skill badges need evidence of performance, not just attendance. Participation badges (conference attendee, workshop participant) can legitimately use attendance records.
Each criterion should be a complete statement describing something an earner does, demonstrates, or produces. Use action verbs from Bloom's Taxonomy, verbs like analyze, design, apply, evaluate, create, demonstrate, construct, synthesize, rather than passive or vague verbs like understand, know, appreciate, be aware of.
A well-formed criterion follows this structure:
[Action verb] + [specific object or context] + [standard or condition] + [optional: audience or purpose]
The strong version is specific about what is produced, at what standard, and how it's evaluated. A third party reading it knows exactly what the earner did to achieve the badge.
Most badges should have between 3 and 6 criteria. Fewer than 3 risks looking underdeveloped. More than 8 makes the criteria page overwhelming and may signal that you're trying to cover too many competencies in a single badge (consider splitting into multiple badges).
Each criterion should be independently meaningful, removing any one of them should feel like a genuine loss of specificity, not just redundancy.
Specify clearly how achievement against each criterion is determined. The assessment method section should answer:
When assessment involves subjective evaluation (portfolios, projects, presentations), build a rubric table. A standard rubric has three components:
Define the minimum required to earn the badge. Common conventions:
Publish the complete criteria (description, criteria list, evidence requirements, assessment method, rubric if applicable, and passing threshold) on a publicly accessible page. Link to this page in your badge's metadata. On platforms like IssueBadge.com, each badge class has a dedicated criteria URL that is included in the Open Badge metadata automatically.
Below is an example rubric for a project management skills badge. Dimensions, level descriptors, and thresholds are illustrative of the structure you should build for your own program.
| Dimension | Exemplary (4) | Proficient (3) ✓ Pass | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope Definition | Fully defines project scope with stakeholder analysis, deliverables, constraints, and assumptions. Handles ambiguity independently. | Defines scope with all key elements; minor gaps in stakeholder or constraint coverage. | Partially defines scope; missing key deliverables or stakeholder considerations. | Scope is vague or incomplete; essential elements missing. |
| Schedule Development | Creates milestone-based schedule with dependency mapping, critical path identification, and realistic time estimates with justification. | Creates milestone schedule with reasonable sequencing; minor dependency or timing issues. | Basic schedule present; lacks dependency logic or realistic time estimates. | No coherent schedule; activities not sequenced or timed. |
| Risk Management | Identifies 5+ meaningful risks with probability/impact assessment and documented mitigation strategies for all high-priority risks. | Identifies 3-4 relevant risks with basic mitigation strategies. | Identifies 1-2 risks; mitigation strategies generic or absent. | No meaningful risk identification. |
| Communication | Project documentation is clear, professional, and accessible to both technical and non-technical audiences without additional explanation. | Documentation is clear and mostly professional; some sections require clarification. | Documentation is understandable but inconsistent in quality or clarity. | Documentation is unclear, incomplete, or largely incomprehensible. |
Passing threshold: A minimum average score of 3.0 across all dimensions, with no individual dimension scoring below 2. Earners scoring below this threshold may resubmit once after receiving written feedback.
These require the most rigorous criteria, specific observable behaviors, performance standards, evidence requirements, and a rubric. They represent genuine capabilities and should be earned through demonstrated performance, not just learning content.
Criteria focus on what was completed: modules, assessments, hours, and assignments. These are cleaner to write because completion is binary. Specify: what must be completed, what minimum performance standards apply to assessments within the program, and whether all elements are required or if some are optional.
These have the simplest criteria: confirmation of attendance or participation at a defined event or program. Still need to specify: what counts as attendance (full event? 80%? specific sessions?), how attendance is verified, and the date range.
For badges recognizing peer contributions, mentoring, speaking, or service, criteria should specify the type and scope of contribution, how it's verified (nomination, review, evidence submission), and who approves issuance.
Wherever possible, align your badge criteria to recognized external frameworks: industry competency models, national qualification frameworks, professional association standards, or academic learning outcome taxonomies. Alignment statements on your criteria page (e.g., "This badge aligns with SHRM Competency Model: Leadership and Navigation") dramatically increase badge credibility with third parties who recognize those frameworks.
For a full program framework, see our guide on how to build a badge program for your organization, which covers how criteria connect to your overall architecture and badge family structure.
Badge criteria describe what an earner must do, know, or demonstrate to earn the badge, the what. A rubric describes the quality standards for that demonstration at different performance levels, the how well. Criteria are always required; rubrics are needed when assessment involves subjective evaluation of evidence.
Very specific. Vague criteria like "demonstrates understanding of project management" are not credible to third parties. Strong criteria specify the context, method, evidence, and standard: exactly what is produced, how it's assessed, and at what performance level.
Yes, absolutely. If your program has Foundations, Practitioner, and Expert tiers, the criteria for each tier should describe progressively more complex, autonomous, and contextually rich performance. Using the same criteria for all levels destroys the tiered structure's credibility.
A typical badge criteria page is 200 to 500 words: a 1-2 sentence badge description, a list of 3 to 6 specific earning criteria, and a note on the assessment method and evidence required.
Attendance is valid for participation-type badges (conference attendee, workshop participant), but should not be the sole criteria for competency or skill badges. Competency badges require evidence of learning or performance. Using attendance alone for skill badges significantly reduces their credibility with employers.