How Build90 works

Five phases. Weeks 1–3 repair gaps and teach the core. Weeks 4–6 apply it in mini-projects. Weeks 7–9 go deep on a focus area you pick. Weeks 10–11 produce a portfolio-grade project. Weeks 12–13 turn all of it into something you can send to an employer, including a defence of your own project.

Because the baseline assessment placed you differently. Tasks you have already demonstrated are skipped, gaps you showed get extra foundation work, and the whole thing is scaled to the hours you said you have. Two people on the same intensive routinely get plans that differ by ten or more tasks.

The plan is built to absorb it. Seven recovery modes reshape the thirteen weeks — lighten the next fortnight, move the end date, drop optional work, pause entirely. Nothing happens without your approval, and your finished work keeps its points.

Yes. Use Extension Mode from the recovery page and the plan is rebuilt around your new capacity. Being honest about this is better than quietly falling behind.

From evaluated work, consistency, peer contribution, reflection and your final portfolio — 1000 across the programme. You earn nothing for marking a task complete, opening a lesson, or logging in.

Points are never edited. If something needs correcting, a reversal entry is added with its own reason, so the ledger always shows what happened. You can read every entry on your leaderboards page.

Your best score counts. A revision can only help you, and the ledger records the difference rather than replacing the original.

AI scores your work against a rubric you can read before you start. Some criteria are checked in code instead — required sections, word counts, valid links. Every score comes with criterion-level reasons, and you can appeal to a human reviewer who re-scores it.

No, and it will say so. It asks what you have tried, then gives a hint, then the idea behind it, then a worked example — in that order. Ask it to write something that gets graded and it refuses and shows you the first step instead.

Usually yes, and each task says which policy applies. You disclose how you used it when you submit. Disclosure is never penalised; undisclosed use found later is treated as an integrity question, which is a conversation rather than an accusation.

Your current task, your recent feedback, and your own profile. It never sees your name, your email, your score history, or anything about other students.

When evidence proves it: reviewed submissions at a passing standard, an assessment result, a project milestone, or a mentor confirming it. Watching a lesson moves a skill to “exposed”, which is not the same as knowing it.

Yes. If later work contradicts an earlier result the skill moves to “needs review” and a person looks at it. That is the cost of the word meaning something.

By default, nobody but you and your reviewers. Your squad sees task counts and your check-in, never your scores or submissions. Your public profile shows only what you explicitly put on it.

No, and anyone who promises that is selling you something. What it gives you is a plan that fits your week, work that gets reviewed, skills backed by checkable evidence, and a profile you can send to a hiring manager. The applying is yours.

How much of what employers in your field typically ask for you can currently evidence. It is a signal for your own planning, not a prediction and not a guarantee. It will tell you when you are not ready, and what would change that.