An AI website agent is strongest when the team supplies real constraints and approved evidence. A requirements checklist keeps the Draft grounded and makes the missing decisions visible before the site reaches customers.
State what is approved, what is private, what is missing, and what the website must not invent.
A search for AI website requirements checklist can begin with an attractive demo or a short feature list. That is a useful first screen, but it rarely answers the delivery question: can the people responsible for the public website work from Collect requirements notes, business files, media, brand rules, forms, tracking events, domain details, and language expectations and Write one measurable primary action for giving the agent enough context to produce a useful Draft without unsafe assumptions, keep claims reviewable, and make the next change without starting over? The real risk is usually not a missing screen in the first build. It is the useful source material is trapped in requirements notes, business files, media, brand rules, forms, tracking events, domain details, and language expectations.
Use one real page, one approved evidence pack, and one named reviewer to test the workflow. Ask each option to produce a Draft, then check the path from source material to page, the quality of the review conversation, and the precision of the publish boundary. A useful result is not simply that a page appeared quickly; it is a focused page organized around giving the agent enough context to produce a useful draft without unsafe assumptions. This keeps the comparison grounded in work the team can inspect rather than in a generic claim about which tool is “best”.
Put the campaign brief, company files, portfolio, resume, event details, documents, images, and video in the project library and label each item’s intended use.
The agent reads the audience, goal, facts, and assets, proposes the information architecture, implements real code, and runs foundational build checks.
Owners inspect the Draft, task evidence, completion summary, and version boundaries, then request another edit if needed.
Only an explicit owner action moves the public domain to the new version. The same project remains available for changes informed by traffic and feedback.
Yes. Label unresolved items clearly. The Draft can show structure, but uncertain claims should stay out of the published site.
Yes. ClawCraft keeps the source files, coded website, Drafts, published version, and task history together so a later brief can produce another reviewable Draft.
No. Generation creates a Draft. The current public version stays online until the project owner reviews and explicitly publishes the replacement.
After the first release, document what changed, who approved it, and which page or conversion signal will decide the next iteration. That creates a practical operating record instead of a one-off prompt. Keep the boundary visible: The checklist reduces ambiguity but does not replace legal, brand, technical, or executive review.. If a workflow can support that discipline while still helping the team move quickly, it is a stronger candidate for a company website than one judged only by its first visual result.
