Free Claude Detector.
Check text for Claude-style machine patterns. An honest reading of AI likelihood, with the model-attribution myth addressed head on.
Scores 40 to 69 are inconclusive. Never punish on a score alone.
Claude writes well. The dial still reads it.
Claude has a reputation as the stylist among the major assistants: more varied sentence rhythm than older GPT output, fewer stock transitions, a fondness for the confident short sentence. That reputation leads people to assume Claude text beats detectors. In practice, unedited Claude longform still carries the statistical signature of machine generation: consistency of register that humans rarely sustain, evenly distributed paragraph lengths, and a predictability of word choice that survives the surface polish. It scores lower than 2023-era GPT output on average, and still lands in the AI band when unedited.
The model-attribution myth
No detector can certify which model wrote a text, and this page will not pretend otherwise. Claude, GPT and Gemini are trained on overlapping data with similar objectives; their outputs differ in flavor, not in statistical kind. What a detector honestly measures is machine-likeness in general. If you arrived here wanting did my freelancer use Claude specifically, the answerable version of your question is did a machine draft this, and that one the dial can read. The mechanics are in how AI detectors work.
Where Claude text shows up, and what to do
Claude is heavily used in professional writing workflows: reports, documentation, marketing drafts, long emails. If you are an editor receiving such text, the reading tells you how much machine pattern survived the author’s revision, which is a decent proxy for how much human attention the draft received. If you are checking your own Claude-assisted work, the dial tells you whether your revision pass made the text yours: substantial rewriting reliably moves Claude drafts into the mixed or human band, and that movement reflects real authorship, not evasion. For the GPT equivalent of this page, see the ChatGPT detector.
Reading a Claude-suspect text like an examiner
A practical checklist for the texts that land on this page. Sustained evenness is the strongest tell: Claude holds register and rhythm across a thousand words in a way human writers rarely manage without heavy editing. Watch the paragraph shapes next, since assistant prose tends to deal its points in even portions, each paragraph carrying one tidy idea with a smooth handoff. Then look for the absence of friction: no abandoned clauses, no parenthetical second thoughts, no sentence that exists only because the writer was annoyed. Any one of these proves nothing, and formal human writing shows several. The dial aggregates hundreds of such signals into the one number, which is why a reading on 300 words beats your intuition on 30, and why the inconclusive band exists for the texts where the signals genuinely conflict.
Claude powers many editing and drafting tools behind the scenes, so text can carry Claude texture without anyone having opened a chatbot. When you scan a colleague or freelancer submission, you are measuring how much machine pattern survived the workflow, not accusing them of a specific app.
Related tools and guides
Check a text for Claude patterns.
Paste it and read the dial. The verdict covers machine writing in general.
Free. No account. Nothing stored.Frequently asked
Can any tool reliably identify Claude specifically?
No. Claude shares statistical habits with other large language models, so detectors score AI-likeness in general. Claims of model-specific attribution are marketing, not science.
Does Claude write more like a human than other models?
Claude tends toward varied sentence rhythm, which can lower its scores slightly compared to older GPT output. The detector still catches typical Claude prose, especially unedited longform.
Will Claude text pass after light editing?
Light edits lower the score somewhat; substantial human revision lowers it a lot. That is the correct behavior: the more human work in the text, the more human the text is.
Why scan for Claude at all?
Because Claude is now common in writing workflows. If you receive prose and want a read on whether it was machine drafted, the statistical verdict applies regardless of which assistant produced it.