STEP 1
Paste your agenda
Drop in a draft agenda, one session per line. Times are optional. Works on a rough outline or a finished run of show.
Conference agenda checker
Check your conference agenda in one paste. Paste your conference agenda and get an instant Gathering Effectiveness Score against 23,624 real event agendas, plus the one missing mechanism that would move it most.
Free, no login. Grading runs entirely in your browser. Nothing you paste leaves your browser: no upload, no storage, nothing sent to us.
Same engine as the agenda grader, tuned for this gathering type: your result compares against the Technology / AI / Startup corpus by default. Starting from scratch? Use the evidence-based template first, then grade your draft.
23,624 real agendas scored. Not one has broken 60. See where yours lands.
Design potential0
Verified0
Report links contain only rubric scores and the selected comparison category. They never contain your agenda text or source URL.
Your report is already complete.
No account or email is required. Use the score card for a compact image, print or save a local PDF, or deliberately copy a score-only report link. The pasted agenda remains in this browser tab.
The score is an opinion from the visible agenda text, computed by the published GES rubric (v2.0). It never claims your event failed; it shows what the public evidence makes visible.
Where to go next
How the conference agenda checker works
Three steps, no login, and nothing you paste leaves your browser. The same deterministic engine we ran across 23,624 public agendas runs right here in the tab.
STEP 2
Get your GES across 8 pillars
See a 0 to 100 Gathering Effectiveness Score, a red-to-green dial, and where you land against the 23,624 agendas we graded.
STEP 3
Fix the one missing mechanism
The report names the single weakest pillar and gives you two or three concrete moves to fix it before the agenda is final.
The 8 pillars
The score is not a black box. Every agenda is read against these eight published pillars, each scored 0 to 100 from the visible agenda text. The corpus average column shows where the 23,624 scored agendas actually land.
| Pillar | What it measures | Corpus avg |
|---|---|---|
| Participation architecture | Whether people are given real work to do, not just content to watch. | 29.2 |
| Follow through | Owners, dates, and a plan for what happens after the room empties. | 5.8 |
| Problem specificity | Whether the gathering is anchored to one named, costly problem. | 30.1 |
| Personalization | Whether different roles and goals get tailored paths, not one shared track. | 23.2 |
| Network design | Whether the right people are put together on purpose. | 17.5 |
| Learning transfer | Whether learning is designed to survive past the event. | 23.1 |
| Evidence maturity | Whether a skeptic could verify that something actually changed. | 25.2 |
| Future-of-work fit | Whether pacing, energy, and hybrid reality are respected. | 27.7 |
What your score means
The bands come from the real distribution of 23,624 scored agendas, not a curve we invented.
60 to 100
Never happened
Not one of the 23,624 agendas has reached 60. Break it and you would be the first.
40 to 59
Rare, top tier
Fewer than 5 in 100 agendas clear 40. Real design is visible here.
23 to 39
Above average
Better than the corpus average of 21.8, with clear room to move up.
0 to 22
The median zone
Where most agendas land. The average GES is 21.8 out of 100.
The corpus and the method
This is the part no template site can claim. The score behind the grader is backed by real, disclosed data and a published rubric.
- 23,624 public agendas scored, with the corpus size disclosed.
- Validated against a 1,000-agenda hand-scored gold set.
- A deterministic 8-pillar engine that runs fully in your browser, so the text never leaves the tab.
- Adjacent to TeamCreator, which is patented (US 10,007,721 and 11,487,802, Collaboration.Ai).
Founder video: coming soon
A 45 to 60 second walkthrough of the method from the founder will live here. This is a deliberate placeholder until the real clip is published. We do not fake a demo.
The number 1 mistake
92.2%
of the 23,624 agendas we scored show no visible follow-up mechanism: no owners, no dates, no plan for what happens after the room empties. Follow through is the weakest pillar in the entire corpus, averaging 5.8 out of 100. It is also the single cheapest thing most agendas can add. Source: Collaboration.Ai and United We Transform analysis of 23,624 public agendas.
What early users say
Beta testimonial: pending
Real quotes from early users will appear here once they are collected and confirmed. This slot stays empty on purpose. We never publish an invented testimonial or a percentile band the 23,624-agenda dataset cannot back.
How the agenda grader compares
Most people check an agenda one of three ways: paste it into an AI chatbot, run down a generic online checklist, or hire a facilitation consultant. Each does something well. Only the Agenda Grader scores your agenda against 23,624 real agendas with one published, deterministic rubric, in your browser, and returns the same score every time.
Why asking ChatGPT to grade your agenda misleads you
An AI chatbot has no benchmark and no fixed rubric, so it invents a standard on the spot, scores your agenda differently every run, and tends to tell you what you want to hear. To use it at all you paste your agenda into someone else's servers, which may train on it. The Agenda Grader runs one deterministic rubric against 23,624 real agendas, entirely in your browser, and always returns the same score with the one mechanism you are missing.
| Capability | Agenda Grader | AI chatbot (ChatGPT, Gemini) | Generic online checklist | Facilitation consultant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benchmarked against real agendas | Scored against 23,624 real agendas | No fixed standard, invents one each time | Generic tips, no benchmark | Their own experience |
| Same agenda in, same score out | Deterministic, reproducible | Answers differently each run, tends to flatter | Manual | Subjective |
| Names the one mechanism you are missing | Yes, from 8 pillars | Vague, generic advice | A list, not your gap | Yes, but slow |
| Scores across 8 evidence-based pillars | Yes | No method unless you hand it one | Partial | Varies |
| Free and instant | Free, no login | Free and paid tiers | Free | Expensive, days |
| Your agenda never leaves your browser | Runs in your browser, nothing uploaded | You paste your agenda into a third party that may train on it | Not applicable | You hand it over |
| Shareable, reproducible result | Yes, a permalink anyone can reopen | No | No | A static document |
Agenda checker FAQ
What is the conference agenda checker?
The conference agenda checker is a free agenda checker tuned for this gathering type. It uses the same published 8-pillar Gathering Effectiveness Score rubric as the agenda grader, presets the most relevant comparison category, and runs entirely in your browser.
How is a conference agenda scored?
It is scored 0 to 100 from the visible agenda text across eight pillars: problem specificity, participant work, personalization, network design, decisions and follow-through, learning transfer, evidence maturity, and future-of-work fit. Across 23,624 public agendas the average is 21.8 and none has passed 60.
Can I use it before the agenda is public?
Yes. Paste a draft while the event is still being designed. Because scoring runs in your browser, the agenda stays private while you use the result as a planning checklist. Nothing you paste is uploaded, stored, or sent to us.
How do I improve a weak score?
Start with the weakest pillar the checker flags. Add one concrete working block, one named owner, one decision or commitment moment, and one dated follow-up artifact before the agenda is finalized, then grade the revised version.