Claude wrote it. Make it read like you.

You can, and for one paragraph you probably should. The difference is that a chatbot rewrites once and hands you the result with no idea whether it worked. It cannot mark its own homework.

This runs the rewrite against a detector on every attempt. For each paragraph it produces several different versions, scores all of them, and keeps one only if it genuinely reads less machine-like than what you started with and passes about a dozen quality checks: not cut off mid-sentence, no leaked model chatter, not turned into a bulleted list, none of the roughly fifty banned AI clichés. If nothing beats your original, you get your original back rather than a confident-sounding substitute.

The other practical difference: asking a model to improve your text is how you get marked text in the first place. Anthropic is explicit that using Claude to proofread your own writing produces watermarked output.

It keeps your claims, your figures, your names and the structure of the argument. It changes sentence rhythm, hedging, and the phrasing a reader recognises as AI.

Names and figures are swapped for placeholders before the rewrite and restored afterwards, so the real ones are never part of what gets rewritten. If a figure comes back altered, that paragraph is discarded and your original kept. There is also a final check for whether the rewrite drifted so far it lost the meaning; if it did and it did not score well either, it is reverted.

Read the result anyway. That is the one step no tool does for you.

It is the likelihood that writing reads as machine-made, from 0 to 100%. Lower is more human. Below 35% is clear, 35% to 70% is flagged, above 70% is strongly machine-like. You get a number for the document and one for each paragraph.

It is a probability, not a verdict. People who write in a regular, uniform style score higher than they deserve. Short paragraphs are the known weak spot: news-style and punchy marketing copy score far too high, and genuinely human-written news articles have scored around 99%. False positives are possible and we have seen them. The scores are also not calibrated, so 90% is a raw model output, not a claim that 90 of 100 such texts were machine-written. Never use this as sole evidence in a decision about a person.

We don't know, and we won't claim otherwise. We grade against our own detector. Text that clears our 35% bar has not been shown to clear Turnitin, GPTZero, Originality.ai or any other commercial detector, and every mention of "clearing the bar" on this page means ours.

No rewriting service can promise you a third party's verdict. Anyone who does is guessing.

Three different things get called an AI watermark, and they deserve three different answers.

Invisible tracking characters (zero-width spaces, soft hyphens, byte-order marks) are removed completely, and you get an account of exactly what came out. Claude does not add these, but plenty of other tools do.

Style fingerprints such as the em dash are stripped as a matter of course.

Anthropic's statistical watermark is not in the characters at all, it is in which words the model chose. Nothing to delete, and no tool, ours included, can strip it out. Anthropic says a complete rewrite removes the signal and our output is generated fresh, so there is good reason to expect it works, but we have not measured it and we do not sell it as watermark removal. Anyone quoting you a removal percentage is inventing it, since no public reader for that mark exists.

Drafts from Claude, GPT-5, Gemini and 40+ other models, plus text written before any of this existed. Paste it, or upload PDF, DOCX or TXT once you have an account. The free demo takes 1,000 characters.

About 50 seconds for a typical five-paragraph document, two minutes at the outside. On our last measured run, ten documents all cleared the 35% bar, average score before 74% and after 20%, average 17 seconds. Ten documents is a small sample and we would rather say so than round it into a headline.

Formal and academic writing is the hard case: roughly three in ten formal documents run out of time without clearing the bar. Tone drift is the other known risk, which is why the formality of your source is identified first and the rewrite is held inside it.

The demo is free and needs no account. After that it is $9.90 a month or $99 a year, which is the same plan billed differently: unlimited detections, 5,000 Humanizer words a month, uploads, priority support and exportable reports on both. If you use up the words, you can buy more without changing plan. Cancel whenever.

Text is processed as it arrives and is not kept, is never used for training, and is never sold or shared. Detection runs inside our own service, so scored text does not go to an outside company at all. Data is encrypted in transit and at rest.

The service is operated by Girema Holdings Limited, a company registered in Limassol, Cyprus, so it sits under EU data protection law: you can ask for a copy of your data, a correction, or its deletion at any time. Payments are handled by Stripe and card details never touch our servers. The full detail is in our privacy policy.