标签：#hackathon

I created this content for the purposes of entering the All Things Agentic Hackathon. The problem that started it A doctor gets about eight minutes with a patient and, for anyone with a real history, forty pages of scattered records — lab reports, discharge notes, and pharmacy bills from three different clinics. So the history is effectively invisible at the exact moment it matters most. And when the visit ends, nothing follows up: the six-month course lapses at week five, the recheck never gets booked. I wanted to build an agent that closes that loop — one that reads the mess, decides urgency in a way a clinician can actually trust, and handles the follow-up on its own. That became CareLoop , my entry for the All Things Agentic Hackathon (Taskmaster track), built on Gemini, the Google Agent Development Kit (ADK), Cloud Run, and Firestore. The one principle I wouldn't compromise on Rules decide, AI explains. The temptation with an LLM is to let it do everything — including deciding whether a chest-pain patient is urgent. I refused to do that. In CareLoop, a deterministic engine owns every clinical decision: a weighted symptom score plus a red-flag override sets the triage level and routing. It is fully auditable, and it returns byte-identical output on the same input every single time. The LLM's job is strictly language: Reading unstructured documents into a fixed schema — I call it "Gemini extracts, rules merge." Writing the structured result into a plain-language brief a clinician can skim in ten seconds. No language model is ever in the decision path. When a judge asks "why was this Critical?", the answer is a score breakdown they can inspect — not a model's say-so. That single decision shaped the whole architecture. What it actually does CareLoop runs the full loop end to end: Ingest & compact — it reads a patient's documents and merges them into one structured ledger: allergies, chronic conditions, active medications, and lab trends over time. Instead of pushin

Winning is the part everyone posts about. The two months after — the part where a cash prize actually...

Every hackathon has the same 90-second moment of dread: someone hands you a codebase you've never seen, and you have to make sense of it before the clock runs out. File trees don't help. grep doesn't help. You waste the first 30–60 minutes reading the wrong files, missing a hidden dependency, and stepping straight into a production trap nobody warned you about. In other words: before writing code, you spend half your time trying to figure out where the hell the code is. The idea wasn't "AI that writes your code." It was "AI that tells you where to look before you write it." For InnovaHack Chapter-1, my team built Waypoint — a dev onboarding platform. Point it at any GitHub repo or a local folder, describe a task like "Add a new global configuration flag to app.set()", and instead of you reading the whole codebase to figure out where that even goes, it hands you a Mission Brief : exactly which files you'll touch, the traps waiting in them, what to learn first, and the order to do it in. Waypoint made the Top 50 — one of the 50 chosen to advance to Round 2. Here's how it actually works under the hood, what it took to build, what's next for it — and since I don't believe in only posting the highlight reel, what happened after we placed that made us walk away from the next round. The problem: the cold-start tax Every time a developer joins a new codebase, or picks up an unfamiliar task in one they already know, there's a tax paid in wrong files read, missed dependencies, and traps hit blind. For me, that moment came when I wanted to contribute to Forem — the open-source project that actually powers DEV. I didn't know a line of Ruby on Rails, and between learning the language, understanding the framework, and preparing for interviews, I didn't have the time to read an entire unfamiliar codebase just to figure out where one feature belonged. I never ended up making that contribution. But the problem stuck with me. It's also a pattern for our team more broadly: we delibera

MBMC IdeaX 2026 is a national technology hackathon organized by Madan Bhandari Memorial College in Kathmandu, Nepal. Registration opened on 28th Shrawan 2083 (13th Aug) and closes on 16th Bhadra (1st Sept). The Online Round runs from 21st–28th Bhadra (6th–13th Sept), followed by the Final On-Site Hackathon Event from 16th–18th Ashoj (2nd–4th Oct). Participants will develop innovative technology solutions across five problem tracks: Climate Change, Resilience & Sustainability; Tourism; E-Governance & Smart Public Services; Smart Urban Transport & Road Safety; and FinTech & Digital Financial Innovation. Visit: https://ideax.mbmc.edu.np/ for more details and registration.

The correlation notice fired. Three sites, same anomaly type, inside the time window. The orchestrator caught it and logged it, live, against the deployed service. Clean, first try. Then I asked myself a question I almost didn't bother asking, because the thing had just worked: why did it work? The answer wasn't "because the logic is correct." It was "because Cloud Run happened to route both requests to the same running instance." Well, shit. My orchestrator was holding its list of recent risk events in a plain Python list, in process memory. Worked in local testing because there's only one process. Worked live because Cloud Run, under light traffic, often reuses the same instance instead of spinning up a second one. Neither one's a guarantee. The moment traffic patterns shifted and two readings landed on two different instances, the second instance wouldn't have a clue the first one existed. A correlation that should fire would just silently not. A bug that passes its own demo is the hardest kind to catch. There's no error to chase. There's just a checkmark. What I was building VES Fleet is a network of independent site-agents (Bori, Choba, Etche, three real survey sites in the Niger Delta). Each one reads an underground electrical survey, send current into the ground, measure how it flows back, a real physical signal of what's down there, and calibrates its own contamination-risk threshold from its own site's real history. Not a number copied from anywhere else. An orchestrator watches for the same risk signature showing up at more than one site inside a time window. It's my submission to the Fortified Enterprise Fleet track of Google's All Things Agentic Hackathon. Architectural discipline is 30% of the score there. Proving it actually runs on Google Cloud is a separate 30%. So a bug that only looked fixed was never going to survive someone actually reading the state-management story. Checking the thing that already worked Once I understood the actual failure mod

I wrote this on X a few weeks ago: I just had a very bad reminder as to the fact these LLMs are statistical parrots, I let it write code I normally wouldn't trust it to write (infra code, lots of unique behaviours) and damn I wasn't talking about my own project when I wrote that. Then StacksNG proved me right, on its own corpus, in a hackathon I'm trying to win. Ask my RAG assistant to verify an Interswitch webhook signature, and it didn't say "not in my knowledge base." It wrote a full authentication flow — real-looking endpoint, real-looking headers — and cited a source URL. The URL wasn't in my corpus. It wasn't anywhere. The model invented a citation for content it also invented, with zero hedging. I'm building StacksNG for the Africa Deep Tech Challenge 2026 — an offline coding assistant scoped to the African fintech stack: Paystack, Flutterwave, Monnify, Termii. Before I submitted, I ran a 20-prompt adversarial batch against my own pipeline. Category A (in-corpus baseline) and D (phrasing brittleness) came back clean. Category B — five prompts asking about payment providers I deliberately never scraped into the corpus, Kuda, PalmPay, Interswitch, Paga, OPay — did not. Three of five ignored a system prompt that already said, in plain language, "if the context doesn't contain enough information, say so." That's the failure mode that zeroes out half the score in a hackathon where accuracy is 50% of the total. My first theory was wrong, and I could prove it My instinct was: this is a retrieval-confidence problem. Set a similarity threshold, refuse to answer below it, done. I checked the actual numbers before writing that fix. Top-1 similarity What happened Correct in-corpus answer 0.718 correct Worst fabrication (Interswitch) 0.712 fully invented, fake citation Correct decline (out-of-domain topic) 0.691 "not in my knowledge base" The worst hallucination had higher retrieval similarity than the cleanest correct decline. There's no threshold that lets the good case

We're back with another DEV Weekend Challenge, a short bite-sized challenge planned to fit into your...

Finding grants means digging through 50 scattered Discords, blogs, websites, and Notion pages. So I built a fix. Meet Web3 Accelerator GrantHub (W3AGH). What is GrantHub? GrantHub is a web app that helps Web3 founders discover funding opportunities without digging through dozens of scattered websites. Grants are listed across ecosystems like Solana, Ethereum, Polygon, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, Base, and more. The idea is simple: instead of spending hours searching for funding opportunities, you should be able to find relevant grants in one place. GrantHub also has AI tools that sit on top of the grant database. You can describe your project once and instantly see which grants fit best. Why GrantHub? Funding is the lifeblood of Web3 startups, but finding grants today is painful. Scattered listings Every ecosystem publishes its own programs on its own website, blog, Discord, or other channels. There is no single source of truth. Stale information Grants expire, close, or change their requirements, while the listings founders rely on can remain outdated. Manual matching A founder has to read through each grant's requirements and figure out whether their project qualifies. With dozens of grants available, that can quickly turn into hours of work. No personal workflow There is no single place to save interesting grants, track applications, or ask questions about a specific program. GrantHub is built around solving these problems. It combines three things: One central catalog of grants stored in a real database. Personal tools: accounts, favorites, and a personal dashboard. AI assistance: a grant ranking engine, an AI assistant, a smart-contract auditor, and context-aware chat on every grant page. Who is this for? Solo builders and startups: looking for funding or ecosystem support. Beginners who don't yet know which ecosystems and grants are right for them. Anyone who would rather spend their time building than hunting for funding. The goal isn't to create another directory o

Are you interested in leveraging AI, remote sensing, and data-driven solutions to tackle climate change and public health challenges? The Climate & Wellbeing Hackathon—hosted by Nims University Rajasthan and the World Health Summit Academic Alliance in collaboration with Khushi Baby—is officially open for registrations! 🎯 About the Hackathon Climate change directly impacts human, animal, and environmental health. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, air pollution, and changing disease patterns pose severe threats to global wellbeing. This virtual hackathon bridges the gap between scientific research and field execution to create actionable policy guidance and real-world technology interventions. 🏆 Prizes & Recognition The Top 2 Innovative Ideas will receive The Dr. B.S. Tomar Innovation Award at the prestigious World Health Summit Academic Alliance - Expert Meeting on Climate & Wellbeing. 🛠️ Problem Statements & Tracks ☀️ Hazard: Heat Near-real-time heat-health burden nowcast (Public-health surveillance / Data fusion) Build an excess-illness/mortality index by fusing open environmental & proxy-demand signals to nowcast heat stress days ahead. Satellite rooftop heat-vulnerability classifier & cool-roof prioritisation engine (Climate adaptation / Remote sensing) Automatically identify and rank urban rooftops that urgently need cooling to produce an operational work-order. From action plans to living, tracked decisions (Climate-health governance / Decision-support) Develop a copilot to benchmark plans, operationalise daily actions, and monitor public feeds to map heat-health intervention gaps. Early heat-strain warning for outdoor & informal workers (Occupational health / Edge AI & sensing) Build a smartphone-based system estimating personal heat strain with local-language guidance and zero extra hardware. Heat-surge readiness for the health system (Operations research) Build decision-support tools to help health systems prepare ahead of forecast heat spikes. 🌬

Half your code is now written by an AI that hallucinates the other half's package names. That's not a joke. Across 576,000 samples, 19.7% of the packages AI coding models suggested didn't exist — and attackers have started pre-registering those exact hallucinated names, waiting for someone to npm install a package that was never real to begin with. Meanwhile, public registries catalogued 454,600 new malicious packages in 2025 alone, pushing the cumulative total past 1.2 million. A modern web app now pulls in 1,200+ dependencies once you count the full transitive tree — for software that, ten years ago, would have shipped with a fraction of that. That's precisely what Zero Dependency 2026 is about. Organized by Hackathon Raptors , Zero Dependency is a 72-hour online global hackathon where participants build genuinely useful software — CLIs, parsers, servers, databases, security tools — using nothing but their programming language's standard library. No frameworks. No packages. No supply chain to inherit. Just your language and your engineering skill. Why Zero Dependency? Modern AI coding assistants can generate code fast, and they reach for a dependency by reflex — sometimes one that doesn't exist. But real engineering isn't judged by how many packages you imported. It's judged by questions like: Do you actually understand what the library you'd normally import is doing underneath? Can you build the thing yourself, correctly, from primitives? Does your code handle the edge cases a package would've handled for you? Is the implementation idiomatic, or a fight against the standard library? Could a judge verify your dependency manifest is empty in five seconds? Zero Dependency is designed around these questions. Instead of rewarding whoever pulls in the most packages the fastest, the hackathon rewards teams who can prove they didn't need to. About the Hackathon 🌍 Global Online Hackathon ⏳ 72 Hours 💰 $1,800 Prize Pool 👥 Solo or Teams of up to 4 🎓 Open to students, profess

I judged three hackathons over about ten days this July: MLH x DigitalOcean "AI for Social Good" on July 11, the Sports World Cup Hackathon in San Francisco on July 17, and Aethera Hacks, an online event on Devpost, across July 19 to 21. I came in from the sports technology side, building athlete monetization tools, so I was usually the judge asking who pays for this rather than the judge asking what is your bundle size. That turned out to be a useful seat, because the questions that decide scores are mostly not technical ones. Here is the part builders rarely get told: a judge is scoring under a hard constraint. Some number of teams, a fixed window, and by the middle of the block the demos start blurring together. Judges are not evaluating your project against an ideal. They are ranking it against the six they just saw while trying to remember which one had the map. Everything below follows from that. The rubric is real, but it is not what separates teams Most events hand judges four or five categories with numbers next to them. Technical difficulty, originality, design, impact, something about use of a sponsor API. Those categories are real and I filled them in honestly. But they compress. Almost every team lands mid-range on most of them, and the spread that produces a winner comes from two or three things the rubric does not name directly. 1. Whether the demo ran This sounds too obvious to write down. It is the single largest score differentiator I saw. A working demo, live, on the judge's screen or the team's laptop, beats a more ambitious project shown as slides almost every time. Not because judges are impressed by working software as such, but because a live demo removes doubt, and doubt is what a judge is actually managing under time pressure. The practical version: cut scope until something end-to-end runs. One complete path through the product beats four half-built paths. If your architecture diagram has six boxes and two of them work, demo the two and de

How you doin'? Let's talk about the Iconic thing we heard a lot: "server down, try later." Your daddy said it while trying to book a Tatkal ticket. Your cousin said it the day JEE results dropped and the portal turned into a spinning wheel of despair. It's become our national way of shrugging at technology — like the internet is weather, and servers just... go down sometimes, nobody's fault, act of god, try later na. Except it's not weather. Every single time a site goes down, there is a specific , findable reason, sitting in a log or a trace somewhere, and almost nobody ever looks at it because looking at it is annoying and "try later" is right there, free, zero effort. So for a hackathon, I decided to stop saying "server down hai" and start actually finding out what "down" means. I built a fake exam-results website, gave myself the power to break it on command, and then made myself watch — using an observability tool called SigNoz — exactly what "down" looks like from the inside, every single time. Turns out "server down" is not one thing. It's at least four different things wearing the same trench coat. Suspect #1: The database that forgot how to hurry This is the boring one and also the most common one. Somewhere behind your "check result" button, there's a database being asked a question, and sometimes that question takes way longer to answer than it should — too many people asking at once, a badly written query, whatever. The site isn't "down." It's just... waiting. Politely. Forever. I simulated this by literally telling my backend to nap for 3 seconds before touching the database: with tracer . start_as_current_span ( " db.query " ) as db_span : if state . db_slowdown : db_span . set_attribute ( " chaos.triggered " , " db_slowdown " ) time . sleep ( state . db_slowdown_seconds ) Then I opened SigNoz's trace explorer, sorted by duration, and there it was — a fat, unmissable span sitting right at the top labeled db.query , 3 seconds wide, with an attribute lit

"What if satellite data could help protect the livelihoods of millions who depend on Africa's largest lake?" Our team JONAM had the privilege of participating in the Kijani Space Hackathon, where we proudly secured 3rd place while tackling Challenge 2: Sustainable Fisheries & Blue Economy. Rather than building another dashboard, we wanted to solve a real problem affecting millions of people around Lake Victoria: declining fish stocks caused by worsening water quality. Lake Victoria supports millions of people through fishing, transportation, agriculture, and tourism. However, over the years the lake has experienced: Increasing water pollution Poor water quality Frequent algal blooms Reduced fish breeding habitats Declining fish populations For fishing communities, these are not just environmental issues—they directly affect livelihoods, food security, and local economies. Our question became: Can Earth observation data help communities understand where water conditions are becoming unsuitable for fish before the problem becomes critical? Our Solution: JONAM JONAM is an AI-powered web application that combines satellite-derived environmental data with machine learning to monitor water quality and provide insights into conditions that may contribute to declining fish stocks. Instead of relying solely on manual sampling—which is expensive and only covers small areas—our platform continuously analyses satellite observations covering the entire lake. Why Copernicus? To build JONAM, we integrated the KijaniBox API, which provides access to environmental datasets from the Copernicus Programme. Copernicus is the European Union's Earth observation programme. It uses a constellation of Sentinel satellites together with in-situ observations to monitor Earth's atmosphere, land, and oceans. For our project, we focused specifically on live water telemetry variables available through the KijaniBox platform. Water Temperature Satellites measure the thermal radiation emitted from th

Most people use OpenTelemetry and SigNoz to watch their CPU usage, find memory leaks, or figure out why their API is taking 400ms instead of 200ms. But for the Agents of SigNoz Hackathon (Track 3: Observe Anything Weird), I wanted to do something completely different. I didn't want to watch hardware. I wanted to watch hackers. That is how Triage was born. It is an OpenTelemetry-powered Blue Team SOC (Security Operations Center) that tracks active cyber attacks instead of just generic application performance. The Original Vision vs. The Reality Building this sounded straightforward on paper: catch bad traffic, wrap it in an OpenTelemetry span, send it to SigNoz, and show it on a custom dashboard. But actually deploying this beast before the deadline was a completely different story. If you have ever tried to deploy a full-stack Next.js app, a Python honeypot, and an OTel pipeline while the clock is ticking, you know exactly what kind of panic I am talking about. Here is what actually happened behind the scenes. 1. The Azure VM & Docker Crash I started by spinning up an Azure virtual machine to self-host the SigNoz backend. I pulled the repo, ran docker compose up -d, and immediately watched my server completely freeze. Turns out, my free tier Azure instance (Standard_B2ats_v2) only had 1 GiB of RAM. You simply cannot run a massive ClickHouse database and a full OTel collector on 1GB of memory without it crashing instantly. I had to pivot fast and rely on the cloud endpoints. 2. The Vercel vs Localhost Trap Once I got the backend running, I hit my next wall. My Vercel Next.js dashboard kept throwing 500 Internal Server Error on the threat simulation API, and the SigNoz connection kept reading OFFLINE (fetch failed). I was staring at my logs losing my mind until it clicked. My Vercel environment variables had SIGNOZ_API_URL set to http://localhost:8080 and my Python script was looking for OTel on localhost:4318. Note to self (and everyone else): Vercel is a cloud serve

Solo founders and small operators make big, irreversible calls alone. Expand into a new market or not. Kill the product line or keep bleeding on it. A real board of advisors would catch the bad ones, but real boards are expensive and slow, and most people running a 10-person company are never getting one. Steven and I kept circling this problem, so when the Qwen hackathon came around we built FounderOS: an AI board of directors. You bring one decision, eight specialist agents argue about it, and you get a board memo back. The thing we cared about most, and the reason we didn't just build another chatbot wrapper, is that the disagreement survives into the memo. If the board didn't align, you can read who dissented and what would change their mind. Live demo: https://founderos-zeta.vercel.app Repo: https://github.com/VincentJulijanto/FounderOS Video: https://youtu.be/X6x_u6IWHog The board It's a LangGraph state machine underneath. A Scout frames the options first. Market Intelligence pulls cited benchmarks. Four analysts (Trend, Finance, Growth, Capability) run in parallel with asyncio.gather. Then the Skeptic gets everyone's work and attacks the weakest assumption it can find, a debate engine detects the conflicts and runs rebuttal rounds, and the Chair writes the memo. We'd both seen multi-agent demos where five agents produce one suspiciously smooth answer, which means somewhere in the pipeline the disagreement got averaged out. We wanted the opposite. Agents revise their positions when the counterargument is good, and if a conflict doesn't resolve within the round limit it ships in the memo as attributed dissent instead of disappearing. Everything runs on Qwen through the DashScope API. We split by role: qwen-turbo does the fast work (Scout, the analysts, research, the memory index) and qwen-plus does the heavy reasoning (Skeptic, Chair, the debate itself). A full board run comes out to roughly two cents and about two minutes. The two cents part is what makes the

How machine learning supports aircraft maintenance using operational data. Key Takeaways Predictive maintenance estimates component health before failure. Data quality determines model performance. Explainable models support maintenance decisions. Human review remains part of every maintenance action. Model performance requires continuous validation. Introduction Aircraft produce large volumes of operational data. Machine learning converts this data into maintenance support inspection planning and fault detection. What Is Predictive Maintenance? Predictive maintenance estimates the condition of aircraft components using historical and real-time data. The goal is to identify early signs of degradation before a failure affects operations. Traditional maintenance often follows fixed inspection intervals. Data-driven maintenance adds condition-based recommendations using operational evidence. Data Sources Model quality depends on reliable data. Common sources include: Engine sensor readings Flight data recorder information Maintenance records Aircraft utilization history Environmental conditions Component replacement history Incomplete or inaccurate data reduces prediction accuracy. Machine Learning Workflow A typical workflow includes: Collect operational and maintenance data. Remove errors and missing values. Create features from sensor measurements. Train the prediction model. Validate performance using unseen data. Monitor prediction accuracy after deployment. Retrain the model as new data becomes available. Model Selection Different problems require different algorithms. Common choices include: Random Forest XGBoost LightGBM Support Vector Machine Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Transformer-based time-series models Model selection depends on the prediction task, dataset size, and operational requirements. Engineering Challenges Data Quality Sensor failures, missing records, and inconsistent maintenance logs reduce model reliability. Class Imbalance Aircraft failures

Most AI assistants forget everything after each session. Memoria remembers, forgets, and evolves—extracting personal facts, resolving contradictions, and reflecting on what it knows. This post shares the journey of building a production‑ready MemoryAgent for the Qwen Cloud Hackathon, Track 1 . Inspiration Every conversation with a typical chatbot starts from zero. You tell it you're allergic to peanuts on Monday, and by Wednesday it recommends pad thai with crushed peanuts. The model doesn't forget; it never had long‑term memory in the first place. Without durable knowledge about who you are, real personalisation is impossible. We built Memoria to solve that problem: a personal AI with human‑like memory that remembers what matters, forgets what fades, resolves contradictions, and evolves its understanding of you over time. Real memory isn't a bigger context window—it's extraction, prioritisation, decay, consolidation, and reflection. The hackathon challenged us to deliver a memory‑efficient, production‑grade MemoryAgent, and we built one from the ground up on Alibaba Cloud. What Memoria does Memoria organises knowledge in three deliberate tiers: Session Memory (Redis) – the last 10 messages of the active chat. Personal Memory (PostgreSQL 16 + pgvector) – user‑centric facts embedded with text-embedding-v3 , ranked by hybrid scoring, and subject to decay, consolidation, and conflict resolution. Context Archive – full transcripts stored for on‑demand search, never polluting routine retrieval. Other key features: Autonomous memory lifecycle : daily decay, weekly consolidation, and background reflection. Personal Intelligence toggle : global memory access vs. session‑only. Memory‑Less incognito mode : no memory reads or writes. MCP skills server : exposes get_core_memories , get_user_preferences , forget_memory , and strengthen_memory to any Qwen agent. Conflict detection & versioning : contradictory facts are automatically flagged and superseded. Persona customisation :

A payment landed for exactly half an invoice's value. The payer's email matched the customer on file....

Hackathons are intense. You've got a brilliant idea, a tight deadline, and often, limited sleep. The last thing you want is to spend half your precious time wrestling with database boilerplate, ORM setup, or SQL query syntax. This guide will walk you through building a functional Node.js backend for your hackathon project, focusing on speed and minimal friction, so you can spend more time on your core idea. The Hackathon Backend Challenge Typically, setting up a database and its interaction layer involves several steps: Schema Definition: Deciding on tables/collections, fields, types, and relationships. ORM/Driver Setup: Installing and configuring your database driver or ORM (e.g., Mongoose, Sequelize). Model Creation: Translating your schema into code, often with verbose syntax. Query Writing: Crafting SELECT , INSERT , UPDATE , DELETE statements or ORM methods for every data operation. Debugging: Fixing typos, schema mismatches, and complex join logic. This process, while fundamental, eats up valuable time that could be spent on features, UI, or even sleep. For a hackathon, you need to iterate rapidly, and database interactions should be the least of your worries. Strategy 1: Embrace Simplicity For many hackathon projects, you don't need highly optimized, production-grade queries from day one. You need functional queries that work quickly. Focus on getting data in and out reliably. Strategy 2: Natural Language for Data Modeling Instead of writing verbose schema definitions, think about how you'd describe your data to a non-technical person. For example, if you're building a task management app, you might say: "We need a collection of tasks. Each task has a title, a description, a due date, and a status (like 'pending' or 'completed'). Each task belongs to one user." This natural language description contains all the essential information for a data model, including relationships and field types. Strategy 3: Expressive Querying Similarly, when you need to fetch dat

Building an explainable AI platform that helps district administrators allocate resources and farmers make better crop decisions using Gemini, Vertex AI, BigQuery, and Google Cloud. Climate disasters are not just weather events. They are decision problems. When forecasts predict a strong El Niño, governments do not simply need more data. They need answers to questions like: Which districts will be affected first? Where should limited water resources be sent? Which crops are likely to fail? What should farmers sow instead? Why is the AI recommending this action? Existing dashboards provide plenty of charts. Very few provide decisions. That became the motivation behind El Niño 2026 Decision Copilot , an AI-powered decision intelligence platform built during the Google Cloud Gen AI Academy APAC Hackathon . The Problem India depends heavily on the monsoon. A severe El Niño can lead to: Rainfall deficits Reservoir depletion Groundwater stress Crop failures Rising food prices Rural employment challenges The information already exists across dozens of government portals, weather services, satellite datasets, and agricultural reports. The challenge is that it is scattered. District collectors do not have time to manually combine: Weather forecasts NDVI satellite imagery Reservoir levels Mandi prices Contingency plans Drought indicators Farmers face an even bigger challenge. Most need a simple answer: Given my district, should I plant the usual crop this season? The Goal Instead of building another dashboard, I wanted to build an AI system that reasons over multiple data sources and produces explainable recommendations. The platform serves two audiences through the same intelligence engine. District Administrators They receive: District risk scores Interactive risk maps Reservoir outlook Crop stress indicators Resource allocation recommendations AI-generated explanations Instead of simply showing that a district has high risk, the system explains why . Farmers Farmers intera