AI readability checker

GPTCleanup Pro's readability checker reads a passage and reports how it moves: sentence length, paragraph density, an approximate reading grade level, and specifically which sentences are driving that estimate up. It answers a structural question, where does a reader actually slow down, rather than compressing the whole passage into one opaque figure.

It's a server tool by necessity. Text is sent to our server, read once by a language model, and the result returns to the page. 5 free checks in any rolling 24 hours, no account required.

Readability and grammar are scored separately here, deliberately. Readability is a property of the passage's structure. Grammar is a property of whether each sentence is correct. A single combined figure would obscure which one a given draft actually has a problem with.

AI output is rarely ungrammatical, so difficulty in AI-generated text is almost always structural: several ideas compressed into a single long clause, paragraphs that maintain the same density from start to finish with no shorter sentence to break the pace, or vocabulary calibrated more formally than the intended audience needs.

None of that is an error a grammar check would surface. It is a property of the sentence architecture, which is exactly what a readability analysis is built to describe.

One round trip to the server, then a structural breakdown.

Step 1

Paste the passage, up to 12,000 characters. A longer sample gives the model more sentence variety to weigh.

Step 2

Run the check. The text is sent once to our server, read for structure and difficulty, and nothing further is done with it after the result returns.

Step 3

Review the estimate and the specific sentences named as driving it. The output describes the prose; it does not rank it against other writing.

A word count establishes length and nothing else. A readability analysis identifies where the reading experience actually degrades: a specific 40-word sentence stacking three ideas, a paragraph offering no shorter sentence to break its pace, a term more precise than the audience needs.

That specificity is the difference between an editing note anyone can act on and a general instruction to simplify that nobody applies consistently. It also gives an editorial team a repeatable, shared basis for the judgment, rather than one reviewer's impression of density set against another reviewer's different impression of the same passage.

A grade-level figure is derived from sentence length and word difficulty using an established formula, not measured directly. Two widely used formulas can disagree on identical text by a grade level or more, because they weight syllable count and sentence length differently.

This tool reports the estimate alongside the reasoning behind it, an approximate level plus the sentences driving that read, rather than presenting a bare number as a settled fact the way the homepage's honest answer on detection treats a detector's verdict.

No. Readability measures ease of processing, not accuracy, argument quality or fitness for purpose. A short, simple sentence can be substantively wrong, and a longer, denser one can be the correct choice for a specialist reader who needs the precision.

The estimate is useful matched against an intended audience, not pursued as a target in itself. A compliance document and a marketing page have no reason to read at the same level.

One tool, several reasons to reach for it before a document ships.

Content strategists

Confirming a page's reading level matches what the target audience segment actually expects.

Technical writers

Catching a section that has drifted into unnecessary density for what should be a plain procedural explanation.

Editorial reviewers

Running a consistent structural check across many AI-assisted drafts before a lighter human pass.

Educators and trainers

Confirming course material sits at the reading level appropriate for its intended learners.