Inspect
Scan the text for conservative Unicode hygiene issues and recurring stylistic signals.
Review repetitive writing patterns and revise AI-assisted drafts without losing the original meaning.
Paste a passage to inspect its language, structure, and invisible Unicode characters. The tool highlights tendencies found in Claude and other model-assisted writing, including repeated transitions, balanced sentences, generic conclusions, excessive qualification, and uniform cadence.
Writing workbench
Meaning, facts, citations, and voice still require your review.
Explainable report
Get an overlap score, confidence level, matched excerpts, rhythm metrics, and a separate Unicode hygiene report.
Important: Experimental style analysis—not an official Anthropic detector. Scores describe pattern overlap, not authorship probability. Do not use this result to accuse, grade, hire, or discipline anyone.
A careful workflow
A useful report should explain what it found. It should also preserve your authority over every change.
Scan the text for conservative Unicode hygiene issues and recurring stylistic signals.
Review highlighted examples and see why each pattern affected the overlap score.
Make targeted edits or use FaddyAI AI Humanizer, then verify the result yourself.
Human oversight
The optional revision stage uses FaddyAI’s existing AI Humanizer to improve variation, clarity, and flow while preserving technical terms and the central argument.
Learn before you label
Separate useful editing signals from unsupported authorship claims.
Read guideUnderstand scores, thresholds, domain shift, and review limits.
Read guideProtect citations, meaning, disclosure, and your own voice.
Read guideNo. It identifies patterns that may occur in Claude and other AI-assisted writing, but those patterns are not unique to any model. Treat the result as an editing signal, not an authorship determination.
The conservative cleanup normalizes unusual spaces and removes a small set of verifiable invisible Unicode characters. Optional academic revision changes wording and sentence structure, so compare the revision with the original before using it.
No tool can guarantee that outcome. Third-party detectors use different methods, change over time, and can produce both false positives and false negatives.
It can support editing when its use complies with institutional rules. Writers remain responsible for original analysis, accurate citations, disclosure requirements, and the final submitted work.
As seen on