diff --git a/EVALUATION.md b/EVALUATION.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4a5d351
--- /dev/null
+++ b/EVALUATION.md
@@ -0,0 +1,331 @@
+# Repository Evaluation Report
+
+## Overall Score: 6.5/10
+
+This repository contains assignments for an Applied Machine Learning course. Below is a comprehensive evaluation based on various criteria.
+
+---
+
+## Evaluation Breakdown
+
+### 1. **Code Quality & Organization** (5/10)
+
+**Strengths:**
+- Clear separation of assignments into individual folders
+- Proper use of Python type hints in function signatures
+- Good preprocessing pipeline for text data
+- Proper use of Flask and Flask-RESTful for API development
+
+**Weaknesses:**
+- **Hardcoded absolute paths** (e.g., `C:\Users\Keshav\Desktop\...`) in multiple files:
+  - `Assignment 03/score.py` line 16
+  - `Assignment 04/score.py` line 16
+  - `Assignment 03/test_score.py` line 7
+  - This makes the code non-portable and will fail on other systems
+- **Duplicate imports** (e.g., `import joblib` appears twice in score.py files)
+- **Duplicate imports** of `from typing import Tuple` in multiple files
+- Incorrect shebang in bash script (`Assignment 04/hooks/pre-commit` line 1 shows `!/bin/bash` instead of `#!/bin/bash`)
+- Inconsistent naming conventions in some files
+
+**Recommendations:**
+- Use relative paths or environment variables
+- Remove duplicate imports
+- Fix the shebang in pre-commit hook
+- Add configuration files for paths (e.g., `.env` or `config.py`)
+
+---
+
+### 2. **Documentation** (5/10)
+
+**Strengths:**
+- README files present in Assignment 03, 04, and 05
+- Problem statements clearly documented
+- Good inline comments in code explaining preprocessing steps
+
+**Weaknesses:**
+- Main README.md is too minimal (only 3 lines)
+- Assignment 05 has typo in filename (`READ.md` instead of `README.md`)
+- No documentation on:
+  - How to set up the development environment
+  - How to install dependencies
+  - How to run the notebooks
+  - Expected data formats
+  - Model performance metrics
+- Missing docstrings for most functions
+- No architecture or design documentation
+
+**Recommendations:**
+- Enhance main README with:
+  - Project overview
+  - Setup instructions
+  - Dependencies list
+  - How to run each assignment
+  - Project structure explanation
+- Fix filename typo in Assignment 05
+- Add docstrings to all functions
+- Include model performance metrics and evaluation results
+
+---
+
+### 3. **Testing** (7/10)
+
+**Strengths:**
+- Comprehensive unit tests in Assignment 03 (`test_score.py`)
+- Good test coverage with meaningful test cases:
+  - Smoke tests
+  - Format tests
+  - Boundary condition tests (threshold 0 and 1)
+  - Edge case tests (spam vs non-spam)
+- Docker integration tests in Assignment 04
+- Coverage reporting using pytest-cov (84% coverage achieved)
+- Proper use of pytest fixtures
+
+**Weaknesses:**
+- Tests use hardcoded paths (non-portable)
+- No tests for Assignments 01, 02, and 05
+- No mock objects used in tests (tests depend on actual model files)
+- Missing edge case tests for empty strings, special characters, etc.
+- Coverage report file has encoding issues (appears to be UTF-16)
+
+**Recommendations:**
+- Make tests portable with relative paths
+- Add tests for data preparation notebooks
+- Use mocking to avoid dependencies on model files
+- Add more edge case tests
+- Fix coverage report encoding
+
+---
+
+### 4. **Containerization & DevOps** (7/10)
+
+**Strengths:**
+- Well-structured Dockerfile with proper base image
+- Multi-stage NLTK data download in Docker
+- Proper port exposure and working directory setup
+- Pre-commit git hook implementation for CI
+- Docker test automation with proper cleanup
+- Good separation of concerns (app, resources, src)
+
+**Weaknesses:**
+- No `.dockerignore` file to exclude unnecessary files
+- No docker-compose for easier orchestration
+- Hook only runs on main branch (might miss issues in feature branches)
+- No CI/CD pipeline configuration (GitHub Actions, Jenkins, etc.)
+
+**Recommendations:**
+- Fix pre-commit hook shebang (add missing `#`)
+- Add `.dockerignore` file
+- Consider adding `docker-compose.yml` for easier management
+- Implement full CI/CD pipeline
+- Run tests on all branches, not just main
+
+---
+
+### 5. **Machine Learning Implementation** (7/10)
+
+**Strengths:**
+- Multiple ML assignments covering different areas:
+  - Text classification (spam detection)
+  - Transfer learning with CNNs (image classification)
+  - Transfer learning with Transformers (sentiment analysis)
+- Proper data preprocessing pipeline
+- Use of industry-standard libraries (sklearn, NLTK)
+- Model serialization using joblib
+- Proper train/test/validation split (visible in Assignment 01)
+
+**Weaknesses:**
+- No model evaluation metrics documented
+- No comparison of different models or hyperparameters
+- Missing model versioning strategy
+- No explanation of model selection process
+- Notebooks lack markdown cells explaining the approach
+- No visualization of results
+
+**Recommendations:**
+- Document model performance (accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score)
+- Add visualizations (confusion matrices, ROC curves)
+- Include model comparison studies
+- Add markdown explanations in notebooks
+- Implement model versioning with MLflow or similar
+
+---
+
+### 6. **Code Reusability & Modularity** (6/10)
+
+**Strengths:**
+- Good separation between scoring, prediction, and integration modules
+- Reusable preprocessing function
+- Flask resource classes for API endpoints
+- Shared model loading functionality
+
+**Weaknesses:**
+- Duplicate code across Assignment 03 and 04 (score.py is nearly identical)
+- No shared utilities package across assignments
+- Preprocessing logic duplicated in multiple places
+- No configuration management system
+
+**Recommendations:**
+- Create a shared utilities module at the root level
+- Use DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle
+- Implement configuration management (e.g., `config.yaml` or `.env`)
+- Extract common patterns into reusable functions
+
+---
+
+### 7. **Dependencies Management** (6/10)
+
+**Strengths:**
+- `requirements.txt` file present in Assignment 04
+- Core dependencies properly listed
+
+**Weaknesses:**
+- No version pinning in requirements.txt (can lead to compatibility issues)
+- No requirements file for other assignments
+- No virtual environment documentation
+- No mention of Python version requirements (visible in Dockerfile: 3.9)
+
+**Recommendations:**
+- Pin all dependency versions
+- Add requirements.txt for all assignments
+- Document Python version requirements
+- Consider using `poetry` or `pipenv` for better dependency management
+- Add `requirements-dev.txt` for development dependencies
+
+---
+
+### 8. **Security & Best Practices** (5/10)
+
+**Strengths:**
+- Text preprocessing includes sanitization steps
+- Flask app runs with proper host binding
+- Docker container runs as non-root by default (python:3.9-slim)
+
+**Weaknesses:**
+- Debug mode enabled in production Flask app (`debug=True` in app.py)
+- Hardcoded paths could expose system structure
+- No input validation for API endpoints
+- No rate limiting on API endpoints
+- No authentication/authorization
+- Sensitive paths potentially committed to git
+
+**Recommendations:**
+- Disable debug mode in production
+- Add input validation and sanitization
+- Implement rate limiting
+- Add authentication if needed
+- Use environment variables for sensitive data
+- Add `.gitignore` to exclude sensitive files
+
+---
+
+### 9. **Git Practices** (4/10)
+
+**Strengths:**
+- Git repository initialized
+- Pre-commit hooks implemented
+- Proper branch usage
+
+**Weaknesses:**
+- Only 2 commits in the entire repository history
+- No meaningful commit messages ("Initial plan", "[Added] Source code")
+- No `.gitignore` file present
+- Potentially sensitive data (model files, datasets) might be tracked
+- No contribution guidelines
+- No issue tracking visible
+
+**Recommendations:**
+- Make frequent, meaningful commits
+- Write descriptive commit messages
+- Add comprehensive `.gitignore`
+- Exclude large files (models, datasets) from git
+- Use Git LFS for large files if needed
+- Follow conventional commit message format
+
+---
+
+### 10. **Data Management** (6/10)
+
+**Strengths:**
+- Train/test/validation split properly implemented
+- CSV files for structured data
+- Model and vectorizer serialization
+
+**Weaknesses:**
+- No data versioning
+- Dataset origins not documented
+- No data validation or schema checks
+- Large data files potentially in git (bad practice)
+- No data pipeline documentation
+
+**Recommendations:**
+- Use DVC (Data Version Control) for dataset management
+- Document data sources and collection methods
+- Implement data validation (e.g., using Great Expectations)
+- Store large datasets outside of git (use cloud storage)
+- Add data exploration and statistics documentation
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+### Strengths:
+1. ✅ Multiple ML assignments covering diverse topics
+2. ✅ Proper Flask API implementation
+3. ✅ Docker containerization
+4. ✅ Comprehensive unit testing in some assignments
+5. ✅ Pre-commit hooks for CI
+6. ✅ Good code structure and organization
+
+### Critical Issues:
+1. ❌ **Hardcoded absolute paths** - Makes code non-portable
+2. ❌ **Debug mode in production** - Security risk
+3. ❌ **Minimal git history** - Poor version control practices
+4. ❌ **Missing .gitignore** - May track unnecessary files
+5. ❌ **Poor documentation** - Difficult for others to use
+6. ❌ **No dependency version pinning** - Potential compatibility issues
+
+### Overall Assessment:
+
+This repository demonstrates **moderate competency** in applied machine learning and software engineering. The student has successfully implemented multiple ML assignments with proper testing and containerization. However, the repository suffers from **poor portability** (hardcoded paths), **inadequate documentation**, and **suboptimal git practices**.
+
+**Score: 6.5/10**
+
+The repository would benefit significantly from:
+1. Fixing hardcoded paths
+2. Enhancing documentation
+3. Improving git practices
+4. Adding comprehensive .gitignore
+5. Implementing better security practices
+6. Pinning dependency versions
+
+With these improvements, the repository could easily reach 8.5-9/10.
+
+---
+
+## Detailed Recommendations Priority
+
+### High Priority (Must Fix):
+1. Remove all hardcoded absolute paths
+2. Add comprehensive .gitignore
+3. Fix pre-commit hook shebang
+4. Disable debug mode in Flask app
+5. Add main README with setup instructions
+
+### Medium Priority (Should Fix):
+1. Pin dependency versions
+2. Add docstrings to all functions
+3. Remove duplicate code
+4. Add input validation to APIs
+5. Fix filename typo (READ.md → README.md)
+
+### Low Priority (Nice to Have):
+1. Add model performance documentation
+2. Implement data versioning
+3. Add docker-compose
+4. Add visualization of results
+5. Improve git commit history practices
+
+---
+
+*Evaluation Date: December 23, 2024*
+*Evaluator: GitHub Copilot Coding Agent*