Paste your draft, get the score, and see the parts that may need a more natural pass
Rated 4.8/5 from 12,000+ reviews
Used by writers around the world
You've opened an email that was obviously AI: same-length sentences, a 'delve' by line two. You knew instantly and didn't say a word. Your reader won't either.
Your draft reads fine to you. You're not the one it's for.
Under the score you get the sentence pattern that triggered it, the rewrite path, and the result after a natural pass.
Network Rail conducted an assessment of the bridge after the incident, while trains were temporarily replaced by buses before normal service resumed.
Network Rail checked the bridge for damage after the incident. Buses replaced trains for part of the morning, but services are running again.
The launch memo reads clearly, but several lines use the same polished rhythm.
Each sentence starts with a broad claim before moving into generic support.
The core idea is strong and the examples are specific enough to keep.
A quick rewrite would make the draft sound less templated.
80%
AI Generated Text
Benchmarked against leading AI detectors
Do not guess which lines read AI written. ClearScript highlights the exact sentences that need a human pass so you can edit, humanize, and publish with more confidence.
Three steps, under 30 seconds
Drop your draft straight into the editor, up to 10,000 words a scan. What comes back is an AI likelihood signal, not a verdict on who wrote it.
Click Detect AI and get results in seconds. ClearScript checks output patterns from ChatGPT, GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek, and more.
Read the sentence-level results, rewrite the highlighted parts with the AI Humanizer, then rescan before it goes out. Wherever it lands, follow the rules there on AI help and disclose it where asked.
The score matters less than knowing what to fix next
Check the draft before it leaves your laptop
See which lines read too polished, then rewrite them without changing the argument
Review with context, not a blind score
Use the report to spot patterns, compare sentence signals, and decide what needs a closer look
Publish copy that sounds less canned
Run articles, emails, scripts, and client drafts through one pass before they go live
A scan returns one score from 0 to 100 for the document plus a score for every sentence inside it. The document number is the average of those sentence scores, weighted by how long each sentence is, and the report groups the five labels into three colours so a long draft stays quick to read. Here is exactly where the lines sit, which is more than most detectors publish.
0 to 24
Reads like a person wrote it. Sentence length moves around, the word choices are not the obvious ones, and the argument wanders a little the way real thinking tends to.
25 to 39
Mostly your voice with a few tidy stretches. Common in work you have proofread three times, which is a good thing to have done and an awkward thing to be scored on.
40 to 67
The model will not commit. Short samples, technical writing and heavily revised drafts land here, and so does genuinely mixed authorship. This is the band where the sentence view earns its keep.
68 to 77
Enough pattern to be worth a look. Usually generated text someone has already been through by hand, or human writing that has settled into a template.
78 to 100
A strong, consistent signal running through the whole document. Raw model output that nobody has edited almost always sits up here. It means the writing carries the patterns of machine text, it does not tell you who typed it, and the line moves a little every time we recalibrate.
The 99.8% is ClearScript on our benchmark set, with these bands and this model. Every detector runs its own, which is why the same paragraph can come back with different numbers from different tools. Your score tells you the draft needs a pass. The sentence view tells you which lines.
Honest work trips detectors, and the causes are boringly consistent once you know what to look for. Find yours here, then open the sentence view and loosen the lines carrying the score.
Writing in a language you learned tends toward safer vocabulary, cleaner grammar and more even sentence length, because that is what you were taught and what you can check yourself. Detectors read that regularity as a machine signal. It is the most common reason honest work gets flagged and it is genuinely unfair.
Grammar tools, style checkers and a fourth round of self-editing all push a draft toward the same tidy average. The more passes it takes, the more it reads as optimised writing, which is exactly what a model produces on its first try.
Lab reports, literature reviews, legal summaries and structured abstracts follow a fixed shape on purpose. A model writing in the same genre reproduces that shape, so the overlap is real and you cannot edit it away without breaking the format you were told to use.
Under a couple of hundred words there is not much variation to read. Sentences below eight words are deliberately scored near the middle with low confidence, so a short paragraph can move between scans while your text stays exactly the same.
There are only so many ways to describe a titration, a REST endpoint or a case holding. Where the correct phrasing is close to fixed, everyone writing about it sounds alike, models included.
False positives are the part of this category nobody enjoys discussing. No detector avoids them, ours included, which is exactly why we measure ours and publish the number.
ClearScript benchmark on 130,000+ writing samples: 99.8% accuracy, with under 0.2% of human-written samples returned as AI.
If it happens to you, work from the sentence view instead of arguing with the headline number. Find the lines carrying the score, loosen the ones that read as templated, and keep your drafts and your notes, because your own writing history convinces a person far faster than a counter-scan from another tool.
Flagged lines you want to loosen? Rewrite them in the AI Humanizer.
Detect AI patterns, rewrite stiff lines, humanize rough sections, and clean up grammar before you publish or send it. It is built for drafts that have already been through a rewriter or a grammar tool, not only raw model output.
See the exact lines with robotic rhythm, then rewrite them without changing the point
Clean up stiff passages, simplify dense lines, and make the tone sound like you again
Turn clunky sentences into cleaner lines without drifting away from your meaning
Fix grammar, punctuation, awkward phrasing, and over polished AI rhythm in one final pass
The two names get used as if they mean the same thing. They answer different questions, and a lot of unnecessary panic comes from mixing them up.
AI detector
Does this writing carry the statistical habits of a language model?
Plagiarism checker
Does this writing already exist somewhere else?
AI detector
A model of how machine-generated text behaves. There is no source document to match against, because there is no source.
Plagiarism checker
An index of published pages, journals and other indexed documents, compared passage by passage.
AI detector
A probability. It tells you the writing reads a certain way, and it stops there.
Plagiarism checker
An overlap you can open and read for yourself. Either the source is there or it is not.
AI detector
Before a draft you wrote with AI help goes out, so you can find the parts that read as generated and fix them yourself.
Plagiarism checker
When you need to be sure every quote is cited and no paragraph has been lifted.
AI detector
A document score, a score for every sentence, and a rewrite path in the same workspace when a passage needs a more natural pass.
Plagiarism checker
ClearScript does not run plagiarism checks, and no AI detector replaces one. Cite your sources properly either way.
Cleaning up the writing itself? Run it through the grammar checker.
An AI detector is a tool that reads a piece of writing and estimates how likely it is that a language model produced it, returning a probability score rather than proof of who wrote it.
You do not have to tell the detector what language you pasted. It reads the text, works out the language, and scores it on how machine writing behaves in that language, without translating anything first. That matters more than it sounds, because a model gives itself away differently depending on what it is writing in. The usual non-English tells are calques, meaning English sentence patterns carried across word for word, a register more formal than a native speaker would reach for, and phrasing that is perfectly correct while still reading like it came out of English.
ClearScript ships in ten versions covering nine languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Polish, Russian, Indonesian, and Portuguese in both a Brazilian and a European version. That covers the interface, the report and the rewriting tools, so you are never reading a result in one language about a draft written in another.
One honest caveat. English is where every detector in this category has the most evidence behind it, ours included, so English scores are the steadiest. The signal holds up in the other eight, but on a borderline non-English result, work from the sentence highlights rather than the number at the top, then rescan once you have loosened the lines it marked.
ClearScript is here to help you write clearer, more original, more natural prose, and to make it easy to show the work is yours. Keep the trail while you write: version history in Google Docs or Word, your notes, your outline, the ugly second draft, the sources you actually opened. That record settles a question far faster than a score from any tool, ours included. Follow the AI rules of whoever you write for, disclose AI help where they ask, keep the trail, and you have nothing to explain away.
See the risky lines, fix the rhythm, leave with a cleaner draft
“fixed my draft in 2 minutes”
@maya_s“I thought it would just lower the score, but the draft actually got clearer.”
@jakeT“i run every draft through it now. fast and no drama”
Carlos M“The sentence view is way more useful than one scary score.”
Wei C“Really helpful for cleaning long ChatGPT drafts without changing the point.”
@priya_k“4 stars because I still review everything, but it saves me a lot of time.”
Dana P