The FiveM Script Evaluation Methodology
This is the rubric we use to score a FiveM script before recommending, building on, or selling it — five pass/fail criteria covering server authority, economy integrity, performance evidence, and disclosure completeness, plus disqualifying conditions that override the rest. It produces the same result whoever runs it, including when it's run against our own catalog.
Most FiveM script listings are evaluated on adjectives: 'optimized,' 'secure,' 'the best banking script on the market.' None of those are checkable. This methodology replaces the adjective with five pass/fail criteria and a short list of disqualifying conditions, so that evaluating a script means running a fixed procedure rather than forming an impression from screenshots and a sales page.
It is deliberately narrower than 'is this a good product.' It scores the engineering and disclosure of a single resource — not the seller's support quality or track record, which is a related but separate question covered at /guides/how-to-vet-fivem-script-sellers, and not the runtime stability of a live deployment, which has its own methodology because a resmon reading and a shipped feature are different claims. A good vendor can still ship a thin product; a well-engineered product can still come from a seller who won't answer a ticket. Score both, separately.
We apply this to our own catalog with the same pass/fail conditions we'd apply to a competitor's listing, and the currentState section below states exactly where we currently pass, fail, or haven't measured yet — including where the honest answer is 'not yet.'
Reproducible, step by step.
- 01Fix the scopeDecide whether you're scoring a single resource or a bundle. Score every resource in a bundle independently, then report the bundle's floor — its weakest component — rather than an average a strong component can hide behind.
- 02Determine source accessRecord what portion of the resource is open and what is escrowed before scoring anything. Escrow doesn't disqualify a resource, but it changes which criteria you can check directly versus which you can only request in writing from the seller.
- 03Score server authorityWalk every registered net event the resource exposes. A single privileged action decided or supplied by the client fails this criterion outright, regardless of how many other events pass — the full walkthrough is the server-authority checklist.
- 04Score economy integrity, where applicableIf the resource can create, move, or destroy money or items, require a dated race test and a dated crash test — either published by the seller or run yourself against a trial or staging copy, per the economy integrity checklist.
- 05Score performance evidenceA resmon reading only counts if it states artifact version, framework, player count, duration, and date. Anything short of that is a target, not a result — see the runtime test methodology for the full bar.
- 06Score disclosure completenessCheck for an escrow file manifest, a dated changelog, and a written support SLA. Treat these as a set: missing any one of the three is a fail on this criterion, not partial credit.
- 07Apply disqualifying conditionsCheck for conditions that end the evaluation regardless of the other four scores — for example, a security-relevant default shipped in a state that exposes money or permissions, or a claim that can't be independently checked and isn't disclosed as unverified.
- 08Publish the score with its methodA score with no visible steps behind it is exactly the kind of unverifiable claim this methodology replaces. Publish which criteria passed, which failed, and why, so anyone can re-run the same procedure and check your work.
What this measures — and what it does not.
The second column is the one that matters. A method that only advertises its reach is a brochure; the limits are what let you judge whether a result means anything for your server.
What it measures
- Whether every state-changing net event validates source, permission, rate, and argument types on the server.
- Whether performance and economy-integrity claims carry a stated method and a date, or are absent.
- Whether escrow disclosure, a dated changelog, and a support SLA are present and specific rather than vague.
- Whether any disqualifying condition is present.
What it does NOT measure
- Subjective UI polish, art quality, or gameplay feel — this is an engineering and disclosure audit, not a design review.
- Popularity, sales volume, or review sentiment — none of these are evidence of engineering quality, and this methodology does not use them as inputs.
- Runtime stability on a live, populated server — that is scored separately by the runtime test methodology, because a resmon reading and a shipped feature are different claims.
- Anything inside escrowed code that the seller won't describe in writing — scored as unverifiable, never assumed safe by default.
What counts as a pass, and what does not.
| Criterion | Pass | Fail |
|---|---|---|
| Server authority | Every state-changing net event validates source, permission, rate, and argument types server-side; no privileged outcome is decided or supplied by the client. | Any single privileged action — a price, a permission, a payout — is accepted as the client sent it, with no independent server-side check. |
| Economy integrity (if money or items are involved) | A race test and a crash test exist with dated, stated results, either published or reproducible against a trial. | No such test exists, or a claim like 'dupe-proof' is made with no dated result behind it. |
| Performance evidence | A resmon or equivalent reading states artifact version, framework, and date — or the listing explicitly labels performance as not yet measured. | A performance adjective ('optimized,' 'lightweight,' '0.00ms') appears with no method, no conditions, and no date. |
| Disclosure completeness | An escrow file manifest, a dated changelog, and a written support SLA are all present and specific. | Any one of the three is missing, vague, or refused on request. |
| Disqualifying conditions | None of the methodology's disqualifying conditions are present. | One or more is present. This overrides every other score — the resource fails the evaluation regardless of how well it scored elsewhere. |
Our own results against this method.
- We have run this methodology's criteria against our own catalog; we have not yet published a comparable write-up scoring a third party's product by name, so the head-to-head version of this exercise is future work, not a claim we're making today.
- Applied to our own catalog, exactly one product — MoneyTrail (vf_banking, currently in beta) — has a dated economy-integrity result. Every other economy-relevant product in the catalog scores fail-by-absence on that criterion today, exactly as an unmeasured competitor's product would.
- No product in the catalog has a dated, stated resmon reading. Every product's performance criterion currently scores 'not yet measured,' including our own flagship listings.
- Server authority is checked at the architecture level, and the shared bridge (ForgeCore, vf_core) ships fully open specifically so this can be verified by reading code — but we have not yet published a line-by-line audit transcript against every product using this exact procedure.
- Disclosure completeness (manifest, changelog, SLA) is a binding internal release-gate requirement, but no product has cleared the full release gate as of this writing, so no product yet carries a public, dated example of all three together.
Does this methodology apply to Vice Drip's own products?
Yes, with no separate standard. The same five criteria and disqualifying conditions apply, and the currentState section above states plainly where our own catalog currently passes, fails, or hasn't been measured yet.
Is this a star rating?
No. Every criterion is pass or fail. A composite score that averages a security failure against good disclosure would hide the failure, which is the opposite of what this methodology is for.
Can I score a script I can't read because it's escrowed?
Partially. Score what you can test behaviorally and what the seller states in writing. Anything neither testable nor disclosed is marked unverifiable — not assumed to pass.
What disqualifies a script outright, regardless of its other scores?
Conditions that make the rest of the evaluation moot — for example, a security-relevant setting shipped in a state that exposes money or permissions by default, or a load-bearing claim the seller can't support and won't label as unverified. A disqualifying condition overrides every passing criterion.
How is this different from vetting the seller?
This scores the product's engineering and disclosure. Vetting the seller — support responsiveness, refund terms, update history — is a related but separate question, covered at /guides/how-to-vet-fivem-script-sellers. Use both; they can disagree.
Published 2026-09-02 · Last reviewed 2026-09-02 · All methodology