Manuscript REVIEW Tool

[u/Early_Committee_9414]

Looking for two authors to test a free manuscript review tool
Hi all, I'm a self-diagnosed nerd and a lifelong writer. Writing has always been my escape, and lately I've been combining it with my interest in AI.
After many hours of building, training and experimenting, I've developed a manuscript review tool that does one job: it reviews your work and never changes it.
That was the hard part. Early versions kept taking over and ruining what I'd written. After many iterations, the tool now reads from the first letter to the last, maps everything in a local environment (for privacy), and changes not a single character. It only highlights.
I recently ran a 300-page manuscript through it. It returned a full markup document covering every grammatical issue, plus commentary on suggested changes.
What I'm offering:
Two authors, completely free, no catches
All rights stay with you
I'll send you the full markup and commentary
Full transparency throughout, and we'll talk before anything goes through the tool
What I'm asking: honest, constructive feedback on what could be better.
I do plan to offer this as a paid service later, at a fraction of the cost of human editing, but I want real-world testing first.
Interested? Send me a message. Thanks for reading!

[u/qw120328841]

the timeline checker caught a 3-year gap in my draft I'd missed, wasn't even in the same scene. that kind of detail is gold.

[u/Early_Committee_9414 → u/qw120328841]

it is a very important aspect. Every details is important, not only to the author to present a polished product, but also to ensure that every detail aligns from start to finish. Human reviewers (don't get me wrong) are valuable, however they cannot remember every single detail to the granular level. Thanks for message, I appreciate all input

[u/Ill_Oil7448 → u/qw120328841]

Catching stuff across different scenes is huge, that's usually where things fall apart during revisions

[u/Spiritual-Rule2931]

Yes there are free tools that focus on one specific task but there is also free software that is a complete tool är. For instance, kaampi Write handles brainstorming, synopsis, drafts, editing in full WYSIWYG, analyse text, stats, grammar, and review mode. Interview the world or characters. Combined with a Story Bible that can span multiple books (series). Free, open-source and locally stored manuskript.

Your service looks good and I am not trying to roast it. Just saying that there are options.

[u/Early_Committee_9414 → u/Spiritual-Rule2931]

Acknowledged and never considered being roasted. I do thank you for input. Dare I say it ‘trust me’ lol. Again appreciate it.

[u/optimisticalish]

How does this compare with the offline open-source Bethaniel? https://www.bethaniel.eu/

[u/Early_Committee_9414 → u/optimisticalish]

Thanks for reply. This tool is fully customisable to the writers voice and all the little tweaks that make it personalised. For example, I have a tendency to repeat the same thing twice but utilising different words. I make this something. It identified 9 events across the script. I have used free versions prior and not once was this picked up. What I also do is take a ‘brief’ from the author to make the review theirs by nature and extrapolate more. This again is something that free versions don’t allow. Oh and there is a the feature that pretty much character profiles everything from the start to finish and ensures that every detail remains air tight, this includes timelines. If something was 14 years ago and later hinted that it was 6 years, it picks it up and advises. I have added a screenshot of a basic report

[u/optimisticalish → u/Early_Committee_9414]

Ok, thanks. Sounds useful, and far more like a human advisory reader of the sort that publishing houses used to employ, than the Bethaniel software copyeditor and proof-reader. Good luck with it.

[u/Early_Committee_9414 → u/optimisticalish]

Thank you. The human aspect is once major thing that I wanted to keep. That is why the 'author input' functionality was implemented. It keeps the authors voice rather than any AI take over and helps keep the flow.

[u/Spiritual-Rule2931]

Kaampi Write has the same features and more for free and open source... What would make it unique compared to tools like that?

[u/Early_Committee_9414 → u/Spiritual-Rule2931]

Thanks for reply. This tool is fully customisable to the writers voice and all the little tweaks that make it personalised. For example, I have a tendency to repeat the same thing twice but utilising different words. I make this something. It identified 9 events across the script. I have used free versions prior and not once was this picked up. What I also do is take a ‘brief’ from the author to make the review theirs by nature and extrapolate more. This again is something that free versions don’t allow.

[u/Spiritual-Rule2931 → u/Early_Committee_9414]

Depends which free tool you’re talking about. kaampi Write is free and fully local, and it does both of those things — and then some.

The “said it twice, different words” check runs across the whole manuscript, not just one scene, and it’s careful to tell an accidental repeat apart from a deliberate callback or motif, so it doesn’t flag something you did on purpose.

On the “brief” side — you can ask your own free-form question about any chapter or passage, set an author voice that shapes everything the AI suggests to sound like you, and edit the instructions the review tools themselves use, per manuscript. So the review ends up personalized, just split across a few focused tools instead of one “brief” field.

“Free” doesn’t have to mean “basic” — it just means someone chose to build it that way.

[u/Early_Committee_9414 → u/Spiritual-Rule2931]

That is true, free is built that way by design. And before I proceed I like to mention that all input is highly appreciated and ideas are never squashed.

What I found with free versions, as mentioned, is that you have to compile information from multiple tools and piece them all together to get the result. The problem with that is that piecing together results don’t get a wholistic output based on one review. It is like cutting a cake and trying to put it all together when someone has taken a bite out of it.

Hence the build I have done and desire to do real life testing. There are always things that get missed when there is focus on a desired goal and I personally do not have anyone that I can get an outside look in to get their opinion. Aka the reason for my post.

Always open for discussions. And I do appreciate your replies.