AI Exam Builder
Pick the standard, subject and chapters. The AI drafts a paper against your blueprint — marks per section, difficulty mix, total duration — and you edit anything you disagree with before it goes out.
New: AI evaluation now marks long-answer questions
See howIntellicamp builds the question paper with AI, schedules it to a class or a division, marks every answer the moment the exam ends, and shows each student exactly which chapter is costing them marks.
Standards 7 to 10, in English and Gujarati medium, running now — papers, marking and chapter analytics all of it. Standards 1 to 12 and further state boards are on the roadmap, and this grid says which is which rather than leaving you to find out after a demo.
| Board / Standard | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBSE Central Board of Secondary Education | ||||||||||||
| GSEB / NCERT Gujarat State Board, NCERT-aligned | ||||||||||||
| Other state boards Maharashtra, Rajasthan, MP and more |
Pick your board and standard. A live cell books a demo on exactly that paper; a planned one registers your interest so we build it sooner.
Setting a paper, sitting it, marking it and learning from it are usually four disconnected jobs. Here they are one flow, and nothing gets retyped between them.
Pick the standard, subject and chapters. The AI drafts a paper against your blueprint — marks per section, difficulty mix, total duration — and you edit anything you disagree with before it goes out.
Over twenty formats, and the examiner picks the shape of every section: MCQ, multiple-select, true or false, fill in the blanks, match the pairs, assertion and reason, one-word, short and long answer, numerical, diagram labelling, case study, sequencing and more. Mix as many as you like in one paper.
Assign a paper to Standard 9-A, to three divisions at once, or to one student sitting a re-test. Set the window, the duration, and whether questions shuffle per candidate.
Objective sections are marked instantly. Written answers are read against the rubric you set, with step marks for partial working and a note explaining every deduction. Teachers can override any score.
Every result feeds a chapter-level map of what is strong and what is weak — per student, per class, per subject, per term. The point isn't the score. It's knowing which chapter to practise next.
An institute owner sees the whole school. A teacher sees their subjects and divisions. A student sees their own papers. A parent sees one child. Nobody sees anything else.
Blueprintstep 1 of 6
chapters + marks scheme
Objective, written, numerical, visual. Choose any mix in a single paper — the AI drafts to the shape you set, and marks every one of these formats the moment a student submits.
Pick any format to see exactly how it's asked and how it's marked.
Four things institutes tell us changed first. Figures are measured across a full term, not projected from a pilot.
Six steps, and the examiner stays in control of every one. The AI drafts and marks — it never decides on its own what the paper should be.
Standard, subject and the chapters in scope. Upload your own chapter PDFs or notes and the paper is drawn from those instead of a generic bank.
Section by section, from a palette of 20+ formats: ten MCQs, five fill in the blanks, three short answers, two long. Set marks per question and total duration. The AI fills the shape you defined.
Every generated question is editable, swappable or removable, and each arrives with its answer key and rubric. Nothing reaches a student unread.
Send it to Standard 10-B, to a whole year group, or to one student. Set the window, shuffle questions per candidate, and publish.
On a phone, tablet or lab machine. Progress saves continuously, so a dropped connection doesn't cost the attempt.
Marking begins on submission and the result is declared in under a minute. The same moment, every dashboard updates — student, teacher, institute and parent.
Every answer is tagged to its chapter before it's marked. So a result isn't a number — it's a ranked list of what to practise next, and the same list reaches all four roles at once.
Illustrative view. The same breakdown exists per subject, per division and per term, and rolls up to a whole-institute picture for the owner.
One result, six readings of it. Each role opens on the question it actually needs answered — and sees nothing beyond its own scope.
Batch against batch, branch against branch, term against term. The whole institute in one view, with the weakest subject surfaced first.
Institute view
Chapters ranked weakest first, the exact questions that lost marks, and a practice set generated for those gaps alone.
Student view
Where the division as a whole dropped marks, so the next lesson aims at the real gap instead of following the syllabus order.
Teacher view
Pick a board and standard, generate papers from any chapters, and get the one thing self-study cannot give you honestly — a ranking of your own weak spots.
Individual view
Every standard and division on one licence, one paper marked to one rubric — so comparing twelve divisions is finally fair.
School view
Every result the moment a teacher releases it, with the two chapters that need work. No login times, no activity feed, no rank.
Parent view
An institute licence covers everyone inside it. Parents and individual students can subscribe on their own. Everybody reads the same results — each sees only their own slice.
Add students and teachers, create standards and divisions like 9-A or 10-B, assign subjects to teachers, and read the whole institute's performance in one place.
Set a paper in minutes, choose the question types, schedule it, and review what the AI marked. Override any score — your judgement is final, not the model's.
Sit practice papers on your own syllabus, get marked in seconds, and see which chapter is holding your score down. No school account required to start.
Subscribe for your child whether or not their school uses Intellicamp. See every result, the chapters that need work, and whether the last set of weak ones improved.
Weekly batch tests, batch-against-batch comparison on the same paper, and practice sets aimed at whatever the last test exposed. Built for centres running the same subject many times over.
Semester exams across departments, sections and electives, with internal marks and result declaration handled in the same pipeline as the paper itself.
The same price and the same full platform on all three. What differs is who holds the account and who is inside it — an institute, a parent with a linked child, or a student on their own. Nothing is held back for a higher tier, because there isn’t one.
For schools, colleges and coaching institutes.
For a parent following one child’s exams.
For a student preparing on their own.
Illustrative pricing for this preview. Annual institute billing, board-specific syllabus packs and volume terms would sit here once you’ve set them.
We used to declare unit test results eleven days later, by which point nobody cared. Now it's the same afternoon, and the students actually read the feedback.
I set a twenty-question paper in a free period and it was marked before I got home. What sold me is that I can still overrule the AI on any answer.
For the first time I know it's Surface Areas she's struggling with, not "maths". We practised that one chapter and her next paper went up nineteen marks.
Written by teachers and the people building the marking engine.
Marks per section, difficulty spread, chapter weighting. The five decisions that determine whether a generated paper is usable.
How partial credit works on a long answer, where the model is confident, and where it hands the decision back to a teacher.
"Bad at science" is not actionable. Why chapter-level data changes what a student does on a Tuesday evening.
Objective sections — MCQ, true or false, matching, one-word — are marked deterministically against the key, so accuracy there is absolute. Written answers are marked against the rubric the examiner sets, and 97% of those marks are upheld when a teacher reviews them. Every deduction comes with a written reason, and a teacher can override any score. The AI never has the last word.
Yes, and most do. Every generated question can be edited, replaced or deleted before the paper is published, and it arrives with its answer key and rubric visible. The AI produces a draft against your blueprint — the examiner decides what a student sits.
Papers can be generated from a board syllabus or from your own material — upload chapter PDFs, notes or an existing question bank and questions are drawn from those. For an institute running a syllabus we haven't seen, the first setup call covers mapping your chapter structure so analytics tag to the right chapters.
Questions and options shuffle per candidate, so no two students see the same paper in the same order. Timed windows limit exposure and each attempt records its own timing. Institutes that need more can run exams in a supervised lab — nothing here requires the exam to be unproctored.
Yes. A parent subscription stands alone — you pick your child's standard and syllabus, and they sit practice papers and get the full chapter analytics without the school being involved. If the school later joins, the two accounts link and the history carries over.
The student, the teachers assigned to their subjects, the institute owner, and the parent subscribed to that child. Nobody else. A teacher assigned to 9-A Mathematics sees 9-A Mathematics — not 10-B, not another subject.
Start with one class and one subject. If it doesn't save your teachers a weekend, don't roll it out.