Implementation worksheet · 6 min read
An AI App Builder Evaluation Scorecard for Agency Teams
Score each builder 1-5 on eight weighted criteria — client-billable output quality, revision speed, code ownership, white-label/domain control, multi-project management, pricing at agency volume, handoff quality, and support responsiveness — using the same one real client brief for every tool. The weights are yours; the discipline of one fixed brief is not negotiable.
Agencies evaluate differently from founders: you're buying a production line, not a product. A builder that delights on a demo project can fail on the third concurrent client build. This scorecard is built for that difference.
Put it into practice
1. Fix one real client brief
Pick a finished past project (anonymized) with known scope: pages, roles, integrations, revisions. Every builder gets exactly this brief — the moment briefs vary, scores are unusable.
2. Weight the criteria before testing
Assign the eight weights to sum to 100 before you touch any tool. Deciding weights after seeing results is how the evaluation gets bent toward a favorite.
3. Build the brief in each tool
Time the first working version, count revision cycles to acceptable, and export or inspect whatever the tool lets you take away. Log actual timestamps, not impressions.
4. Score handoff and ownership
For each tool answer in writing: what does the client own if they leave you, what do you own if you leave the tool, and what breaks on export? Score from the written answers.
5. Compute and sanity-check
Multiply, sum, rank — then check the ranking against your gut. A big gap between the two usually means a weight is wrong or one score was vibes; fix the input, never the total.
Agency scorecard (criteria × weight × score)
Copy this structure into your review document and record your observed result for each row.
| Criterion | Weight | Tool A score | Tool B score | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Billable output quality | 20 | judged on the fixed brief only | ||
| Revision speed | 15 | timed, not estimated | ||
| Code & data ownership | 15 | from written answers | ||
| White-label / client domains | 10 | |||
| Pricing at your volume | 15 | use your real project count |
A failure worth checking
The most common skew: scoring 'output quality' on each tool's best showcase instead of your fixed brief. Showcases are marketing; your brief is the job. If a score wasn't produced by the brief, it doesn't go in the sheet.
Common questions
How many builders should an agency shortlist?
Three is the working maximum. The fixed-brief method costs real hours per tool, and a fourth candidate almost never changes the winner — it changes how long you take to pick one.
Should price be weighted highest?
Rarely. At agency volume, revision speed usually dominates economics: a tool that turns revisions around in minutes changes your margin more than a $30/month price gap.
Basis and scope
This is a proposed implementation method using illustrative examples, not a measured benchmark or a customer case study. Prepared with AI assistance. Validate product-specific behavior against current documentation and your own test environment.