How We Verify a Claude Build

The five-question test

Every gallery candidate is reviewed against five questions. If the public record cannot answer them, the build can still be mentioned as a lead, but it should not be treated as verified.

• Who is the builder or deploying organization?
• What artifact exists: app, workflow, template, agent, integration, or case study?
• Which Claude surface is involved: Claude Code, Claude Agent SDK, Claude API, Claude.ai, managed agents, or something else?
• What public evidence supports the claim?
• What are the limits: private code, self-reported metrics, missing benchmarks, or unclear deployment status?

Evidence tiers

Official customer stories are strong evidence for organizational adoption, but the numbers are still reported by the source, not independently audited here. Public repositories are strong evidence for structure and implementation, but not necessarily for production use.

Builder posts can be valuable when they include concrete details, screenshots, performance claims, repository links, or product URLs. Secondary coverage is useful for discovery, but it should not replace the primary source.

Why the rubric matters

Agent-built software invites sloppy claims because the phrase "built with AI" can mean anything from autocomplete help to autonomous multi-hour changes. The site uses specific language so readers can compare examples honestly.

That is why page copy uses verbs like reports, describes, states, and says when the source is self-reported. The goal is not cynicism. The goal is durable, citable usefulness.