In the current broken system, an agent skims your query letter and passes while clearing out their inbox, or an assistant skims five pages and decides your book's future in ninety seconds. Four months later you get a form letter. It's slow. It's a relic. It's indefensible.
We're inverting the model. Instead of authors pushing manuscripts at agents and hoping, agents pull from a filtered, ranked, pre-qualified pool.
Better for both sides of a market that currently works for neither. If your submission stands out, they'll know about it.
The query process was built before the tools existed to do it properly. It hasn't changed. We rebuilt it around what's possible today.
A seal everybody gets is worth nothing — to agents, and therefore to you. The bar sits where a major publisher would take the book on as it stands. It is a professional standard, not a masterpiece standard: we're not asking whether your novel gets taught in a century.
It isn't a quota, either. We don't admit a fixed share and turn the rest away. If every manuscript we received next month deserved to clear, every one of them would.
And not clearing is useful. You'll know exactly where you stand, exactly what's holding the book back, and exactly what to fix first. That's more than a hundred queries will ever tell you.
Two things worth saying plainly. The system gets sharper over time, and your book is not what makes it sharper. We learn from scores and patterns, held inside our own encrypted database — never by showing your manuscript to a person, and never by training an AI to write. It goes to nobody, no company and no agent, unless you say so.
And the numbers we publish about how well this works are measured, not chosen. They're on our methodology page, they're early, they come from a small test set, and some of them are weaker than we'd like. We'll keep publishing them as they change — including when they move the wrong way.
Several leading AI models — built by different companies, so they don't share blind spots — each read your entire book. They're set up as experts in your genre, then they debate the book against each other until they reach a consensus. One number, out of 100, that means the same thing for every manuscript we read.
Three scores: quality, commercial viability, and potential IP value. Plus the published books you were measured against, what's working, what's holding it back, and the strongest case for and against your manuscript.
If you didn't clear the bar, you get the five changes that would move your score most — named plainly, with the chapters they live in. Not "tighten the pacing." Which chapters drag, and what to do about them.
Simple, and deliberately weighted in your favour: we only keep money from authors we told "not yet" — and we hand them a credit to come back.
A fair, fast way to find out where you actually stand — and if you're ready, to be discovered rather than to keep knocking on doors. No connections, no perfect query letter, no waiting four months to learn nothing. Your book is judged on the writing, by the same standard as everyone else's.
A marketplace of pre-screened work, every book read in full and scored — not skimmed. Filter by genre, quality, commercial viability, or adaptation potential. Every listing comes with coverage and scoring drawn from our proprietary and growing dataset, so you can spend your reading time on books that already cleared a professional bar.
Not with agents, not with publishers, not with anyone — unless you approve it, one party at a time. Submitting transfers no rights. You keep everything you walked in with.
No model learns your voice, your sentences, or your story. Our evaluation partners are contractually barred from retaining or training on what we send them.
Your manuscript stays in encrypted storage so our scoring keeps getting sharper: checking judgments stay consistent, testing new versions against books we've already read. Access is restricted to that purpose and logged.
One click, permanently gone from our systems. Your score stays yours — it's built from numbers, not from your words.
He got a 77. Eight points short. He agreed with every note.
The first manuscript our panel ever read belonged to the founder's husband. Two years of work, a novel he genuinely believed in — and the verdict came back: promising, not ready. The ideas are the best thing in it. But the middle drags, the plot leans on coincidence where it should turn on choices, and the ending arrives before it's been earned.
He read it and said: yes, all of that is true. He's on his sixth rewrite.
Then he did something we hadn't planned for. He sent us three drafts of the same book — an early one, and two written after he'd read a book about how a novel is supposed to be built. The early draft was rougher, and it scored higher on originality, on dialogue, and on voice. The draft he'd engineered scored better on structure, on pacing, and on its ending. He had sanded down the strangest parts to make the book more conventional, and the numbers showed him exactly what that had cost: he'd bought craft with the things that made the book his.
He'd been rewriting for two years and hadn't seen it — and there is no version of a rejection letter that would have told him. That's the part we didn't expect to be building. Not just whether a book is ready, but which of its faults are worth fixing and which of its strangenesses are worth protecting.
Most submissions won't clear the bar. Ours didn't. That's what makes clearing it mean something.
We're calibrating. You get the full evaluation at no cost — pass or fail — and we get the data that makes the next thousand assessments sharper. When the hundred are gone, it's $49.99.
.docx or .txt · 20,000–200,000 words · seven-day turnaround
Your manuscript is encrypted at rest and never used to train anyone's model. Nothing is shown to an agent unless you choose it.
We're in beta and genuinely want to hear it — a broken page, a score that seems off, a report that didn't make sense. A person reads every one of these.