I suppose the ability to form the foundations of civilizations would be the criteria. But is it possible that high intelligence won't naturally lead to formation of a sophisticated civilization? What if really intelligent lions choose to live in exactly the same way it always had, just more efficiently? They'd just hunt and breed and play as usual, with no motivation to create an economy, more complex methods of communication, art, political system, religion, etc.
There are modern hunter-gatherer cultures in the world today that haven't built a complex civilisation yet are just as intelligent and creative as all the other humans currently on the planet. We're all descended from Africans that lived approx 60,000 years ago and they had the same cognitive capacity as modern humans.
The things that makes the biggest difference in regards to developing a civilisation or not is 1. necessity - if you can live happily and safely and stay well fed as a hunter-gatherer, then why bother? 2. access to a wide network of knowledge. No-one, absolutely no-one, built a civilisation without relying on the pooled knowledge of a large network of people and all their ancestors. Compare that to these people who live as hunter-gatherers on a completely isolated island in the ocean, probably no more than a few hundred people in total, with no connection to other populations. Their pool of knowledge is much smaller and they have everything they need on their island. (BTW there really is a tribe like this, and various other hunter-gatherer tribes some isolated, others not isolated but still choosing to live their traditional way of life)
Human level intelligence is usually defined as the ability to transmit large amounts of cultural knowledge from one generation to the next. All human populations do this. The above-mentioned isolated hunter-gatherers still transmit vast amounts of cultural knowledge. This includes the ability to make accurate, deadly hunting weapons from stuff you find in the forest/plains/etc around you, knowledge of all the edible plant species, which parts can be eaten, the best time of year to gather them, plus knowledge of gathering other foods (insects, honey from bees), trapping small animals, plus how to build shelters from stuff you find around you, where and how to find water that's suitable for drinking, how to navigate across the lands you live in, everything else that's necessary for survival, and also a rich tradition of storytelling, art/crafts and music.
All human societies have complex knowledge (both practical and creative arts type skills/knowledge), one way or another. you can find traces of these things in the fossil record that show that Africans living around 70,000 - 100,000 years ago had all these things. There's enough evidence to suggest that Neandertals* had all these things, though the evidence for art is very limited. The evidence that they had a complex language and complex culture is abundant though. They were a different species so may not have been exactly the same as us but they were definitely highly intelligent.
*mythbusting: 1. Neandertals were a cousin species, not an ancestral species 2. the popular stereotype of them being brutish and unintelligent is so wrong and incorrect I can't even find the words. They were either as intelligent as us, or they fell short by a very narrow margin. It was previously thought they were less creative and innovative than us but even this is being questioned now. Their level of technology was lower but their population sizes were smaller than Homo sapiens, and I've already explained above regarding how a smaller pool of knowledge can explain a comparative lack of technological advancement even when two groups are equally as intelligent/creative.
So, back to the question about animals... humans tend to get a bit up themselves and think that there's lightyears of difference separating them from animals, but there's not. It's actually really hard to define what is uniquely human, i.e. things
all human societies do that no non-human animals do. This is because our closest relatives, chimps and bonobos, are so damn clever (and humans go and make the gap even smaller by teaching bonobos to do stuff like use language, make stone tools and start fires... shout out to Kanzi, bonobo genius
who even has his own Wikipedia page )
Chimps and bonobos transmit cultural knowledge from one generation to the next (i.e. the very thing that defines human behaviour) but the quantity and type of knowledge isn't the same and they don't have a complex language that they use to transmit it. Even when they learn language from humans, they can't use it to the same extent - they can understand things like "go into the garden and get me the ball" but can't understand "go and get me the ball from the garden" and they also never ask questions out of curiosity - this indicates that they only use language to achieve a purpose, like getting food or a toy - humans use language like this but also use it for social bonding (chit chat, small talk, learning about other people or things because it's interesting). Chimps and bonobos don't really have creative arts, although some behaviour has been observed in chimps that may be a precursor behaviour to this, i.e. drumming on things, which might be interpreted a bit more like wolves howling to draw the pack together and/or to do with dominance hierarchies within the group.
The question about how you differentiate between human and animal intelligence is a vital one to ask before going into questions like in the OP, and the answer to that question is that the line is way, way thinner than you thought it was.