Tool
Chore Rota Assigner
Assign chores across weeks so nobody gets the same job two weeks running.
Chore Rota Assigner
Build a multi-week rota where nobody does the same job two weeks running, and see everyone's total load across the whole period.
The totals are the output that matters. A rota is not judged week by week — it is judged on whether, after three months, somebody has done the bathroom eleven times and somebody else four.
The one hard constraint is the consecutive-week rule, and the tool will refuse rather than break it.
How the Chore Rota Assigner works — and why it's fair
Each week is generated independently as a shuffle of the people dealt round-robin across the chores, and then tested against the previous week: if anyone holds the same job they held last week, the week is rejected and reshuffled. Up to two thousand attempts per week, and a failure to find a valid week stops the whole rota rather than producing a partial one.
The consecutive-week rule is the only hard constraint, and it is the one people actually care about. Doing the bathroom twice in a row is the specific complaint that makes rotas collapse, far more than any imbalance in totals — a run of two is felt immediately, while an imbalance of three over ten weeks has to be counted before anyone notices.
Totals are reported rather than enforced, and that is an honest limitation. Because each week is generated independently subject to one constraint, the totals converge toward even without being guaranteed even. Over six weeks with four people and four chores, expect a spread of one or two; over twenty-four weeks the proportional spread narrows considerably while the absolute spread grows a little.
Round-robin dealing within each week keeps the per-week load even when the numbers do not divide. Five people and three chores means two people are off each week, and the shuffle decides which two — so being off is itself randomised rather than always falling to the same names.
When there are more chores than people, the round-robin wraps and somebody takes two jobs in a week. That is arithmetic rather than a fault, but it makes the consecutive-week constraint much harder to satisfy, and it is the commonest reason the tool refuses.
Nothing is stored. The rota exists in the page, so generate it once and put it on the fridge — regenerating each week defeats the constraint, because a fresh rota has no knowledge of what the previous one said.
When the Chore Rota Assigner is fair — and when it is not
What it does guarantee
- Nobody does the same chore in consecutive weeks — checked for every position, every week.
- Within a week, jobs are dealt round-robin over a uniform shuffle, so the per-week load is as even as possible.
- Totals across the whole period are computed and shown, which is what people actually judge.
What it does not
- Totals are reported, not enforced. Over a short rota one person can genuinely end up with more jobs.
- All chores count equally. The tool has no idea that the bathroom is worse than the bins.
- Only consecutive weeks are constrained. Someone can hold the same job in weeks 1, 3 and 5.
Two worked examples
4 people, 4 chores, 6 weeks
- Each week deals all four jobs, one per person, so everyone works every week.
- 24 jobs across 4 people gives exactly 6 each — even totals by construction here.
- The consecutive rule is easy to satisfy; valid weeks are found in one or two attempts.
5 people, 3 chores, 8 weeks
- Three jobs a week means two people are off, chosen by the shuffle.
- 24 jobs across 5 people gives 4.8 each — expect totals between 3 and 7 over eight weeks.
- Extending to sixteen weeks narrows the proportional spread considerably.
Rotas that survive contact with a household
Shared houses are the direct case, and the reason a rota fails is almost never the initial allocation — it is the third week, when somebody gets the bathroom again and decides the system is broken. The consecutive-week constraint removes that specific trigger.
Family chore charts run the same mechanic with a shorter horizon and a stronger need for the printed output. A rota on the fridge is enforceable; a rota regenerated each week is a suggestion, and worse, a suggestion with no memory of what it said last time.
Small teams use it for the duty jobs nobody owns — the on-call inbox, the deploy watch, the meeting notes — where the totals column is what makes the arrangement defensible when somebody claims they always get it.
For weighting undesirable jobs so they come up less often for each person, the weighted random picker handles per-entry odds. For a rota where the units are genuinely unequal, such as weekends against weekdays, the on-call rotation use-case explains why totals alone are the wrong measure.
Frequently asked questions
What is the one rule it enforces?
Nobody does the same chore two weeks running. That is the complaint that actually breaks rotas, so it is the constraint worth enforcing.
Are the totals guaranteed even?
No, only reported. Each week is generated independently subject to the consecutive rule, so totals converge toward even without being forced there.
Why did it refuse to generate?
Because it could not find a week satisfying the consecutive rule. This usually means there are more chores than people, so somebody must take two jobs and repeats become unavoidable.
Can I mark some chores as worse than others?
Not here — all chores count equally. For weighting, the weighted random picker draws with per-entry odds.
What if there are more people than chores?
Some people are off each week, and which ones is randomised, so being off does not always fall to the same names.
Does it stop someone having the same chore in weeks 1 and 3?
No, only consecutive weeks are constrained. Constraining further out makes the problem unsolvable quite quickly.
Is the rota saved?
No. Generate once and keep the output — regenerating weekly defeats the constraint, since a fresh rota knows nothing about the previous one.
How long a rota can it build?
Up to fifty-two weeks. Longer rotas take slightly longer to generate because each week is checked against the one before.
Can two people share one chore in a week?
No, each chore is assigned to exactly one person per week. List it twice if it genuinely needs two people.