Before publishing
What the AI blog post validator does
Paste your draft and it comes back with a written review: whether the introduction answers the question the title asks, whether each heading earns its section, where a claim is asserted rather than supported, and which paragraphs are padding. It reads the post the way an editor would and tells you what to change.
It is free, 5 runs every rolling 24 hours, up to 12,000 characters a run, no account. Your text is sent to our AI server to run the review. There is no file upload and no URL box, so paste the text of the post rather than pointing at a published page.
The problem, in plain terms
Half a pre-publish check is arithmetic, half is judgement
Most blog post checkers blend the two together and return one number. That hides the important difference, because the two halves need completely different tools.
- Countable
- Title length, meta description length, how many H2s, whether every image has alt text, whether links resolve, word count. These have exact answers and a tool should count them.
- Judgement
- Does the intro answer the query, does each section justify its heading, is that claim supported, does the conclusion add anything. No arithmetic produces these.
- What this tool does
- The second list only. It reads the writing and argues with it. It counts nothing, and it tells you so rather than implying a measurement.
- What to do about the first list
- Use something that actually counts, or count it yourself. It takes two minutes and it is the half most drafts get wrong.
How to
How to use the AI blog post validator in three steps
The brief matters more than the draft here. A wall of prose with no context gets a generic review.
- Step 1
- Start the brief with three lines: the query you want the post to answer, who is reading it, and the one thing it has to convince them of.
- Step 2
- Paste the draft under those lines, up to 12,000 characters total, and add an instruction if you want a narrower read such as headings only.
- Step 3
- Work through the review one section at a time, then do the countable checks yourself before you publish.
Why there is no score
Why this AI blog post validator does not give you a number
Competing tools return a percentage. One publishes bands where above 80 means strong SEO structure and 60 to 79 means work is needed. Another says 80% or above is good. Neither of them states whether that number is calculated by rules or produced by a language model, and that is exactly the thing you would want to know.
The engine behind this page is a text generator. Any number it produced would be generated prose formatted like a measurement, which is worse than no number at all, because a grade invites you to stop thinking once it goes green. A written review cannot be skimmed to a single digit. You have to read it and decide whether you agree, which is the point.
Why it matters
What the validator cannot see
It only ever sees the text you paste. Nothing on this page opens a URL, loads a page or follows a link, so several parts of a normal pre-publish check are simply outside it.
- Broken links
- No link is ever requested, so a dead URL in your draft comes back unremarked. Use a link checker, or click them.
- Your live page
- There is no crawl and no address box. It reviews the draft you paste, not the version rendered by your CMS.
- Duplicate content
- There is no index to compare against, so nothing here detects copied or stitched-together passages.
- Readability scores
- Flesch Kincaid, Gunning Fog, SMOG and the rest are arithmetic on syllables and sentence lengths. None of them is computed here.
The countable half
The two numbers most drafts get wrong
Title and meta description length. They are trivially checkable, they are the first thing a reader sees in results, and they are still the most commonly overrun fields on a published post.
This site's own audit script holds its pages to 60 characters for a title and 160 for a description, and refuses to build if either is longer. One of the checkers in this space publishes 40 to 70 characters as its title range. The two do not perfectly agree, which is worth knowing: these are conventions about what survives truncation, not rules handed down from anywhere. Pick a limit, count the characters, and stick to it.
The definite check
Invisible characters in a drafted post
If any of the draft was written with a chat assistant and pasted into your CMS, it may be carrying characters you cannot see. Zero-width spaces, word joiners, a byte-order mark stranded mid-paragraph, no-break spaces that look exactly like ordinary ones. They break find and replace, they turn up in URL slugs, and they survive a copy into almost any editor.
The scanner on this site handles exactly 14 of them, in your browser, with no model involved. Unlike everything else on this page it has a yes or no answer, so it is worth running as the last thing you do before publishing.
Straight answer
Will this tell me if my post will rank, or pass a detector?
Neither. Nothing here predicts a search result, and no change suggested by this tool is promised to move a page anywhere. Tools in this space publish word count rules and score thresholds as though they were ranking mechanics. They are conventions, and they are not verified by anything on this page.
It also does not tell you whether a draft will pass an AI detector, and no such prediction is offered. A round-up of blog quality tools puts the position on classifiers plainly: the one it tests is not foolproof and produces both false positives and false negatives. That is the honest state of it, and a pre-publish routine built around passing one is built on sand.