DeepSeek assignment checker

This tool reads coursework and reports the patterns typical of DeepSeek's writing, with each signal named and explained rather than compressed into a single score. It exists for a specific, pre-submission question: does my own assignment carry the reasoning scaffolding and phrasing habits of DeepSeek, and where exactly.

It's a server tool by necessity. The pattern model is too large to run in a browser, so the assignment is sent to our AI server to be scored, and the result is returned to the page. You get 5 free checks in any rolling 24 hours, no account required.

The output is a list rather than a percentage. A checker that returns a bare number is asking for unearned trust; this one names each pattern (leftover step markers, exhaustive checklist-style coverage, a restated prompt) so the reasoning is available for inspection rather than taken on faith.

One round trip to the server, then a reasoned result. Run it as the last step before submission, not the first draft of an outline.

Step 1

Paste the assignment as you intend to submit it, headings included. A complete draft gives the model more structure to weigh.

Step 2

Run the check. The text is sent once to our AI server, scored against the patterns below, and nothing further is done with it afterward.

Step 3

Review each flagged pattern and its stated reasoning against your own memory of writing the piece.

Training leaves a statistical fingerprint, and DeepSeek's leans heavily on visible reasoning scaffolding, distinctive enough to describe precisely. No single item below is disqualifying alone; the read is a function of how many co-occur across one submission.

Leftover step markers

'Step 1', 'Step 2' or a first-next-finally sequence left inside prose meant to read as one continuous answer.

Heavy mid-sentence bolding

Key terms bolded throughout a paragraph, a habit built for a chat interface rather than a submitted document.

A restated prompt before the answer

The assignment question echoed nearly verbatim as an opening line before the response actually begins.

Exhaustive, checklist-style coverage

Every possible angle addressed, including minor ones, rather than the points that carry the most weight.

A labelled closing summary

A section headed 'in summary' listing everything already stated, instead of a conclusion that adds something.

A formal, slightly translated cadence

Grammatically correct sentences with a rhythm that doesn't quite match natural spoken phrasing.

Phrasing analysis is one input. The rest of a rigorous self-review is structural, and no model can do it for you.

Question compliance

Every section should map back to the brief as set, not to an adjacent question from lecture material.

Format fidelity

Report, case study or reflective piece, matching the structure and headings the course specified.

Referencing integrity

Every in-text citation matched to a reference list entry, in the required style, without gaps in either direction.

Section proportion

Word allocation across sections should mirror what the rubric actually weights.

Rubric coverage

Each graded criterion should be visibly and specifically addressed somewhere in the document.

No, and stating that plainly is more useful than implying otherwise. This tool reports patterns typical of DeepSeek's default style. It is not affiliated with Turnitin, GPTZero, Copyleaks or any comparable detector, and it makes no claim about what one of those services would report on the same document.

Institutions set their own policy on AI assistance, and that policy varies by course and sometimes by assignment. Read the one that applies to you before submitting anything. Treat a match here as grounds for a closer look at your own draft, never as a settled outcome.

Several categories of legitimate student writing share these patterns for reasons unrelated to AI, and a serious checker should say so rather than bury it.

A student writing in a genuinely step-based style, because their discipline presents a method that way, produces the same read for entirely ordinary reasons. Second-language students educated in a formal register often write grammatically careful prose with a cadence that reads as slightly translated, for reasons that have nothing to do with a model. Thorough rubric coverage, when the rubric genuinely calls for it, is not evidence of anything on its own.

A flag from this tool, or any detector, is a signal rather than a finding, and should be treated that way in any review of your work.

Preserve your drafts

Outlines and marked-up revisions are the clearest evidence a piece was composed, not generated whole.

Retain version history

Docs, Word and most course platforms log revisions automatically. Leave it intact while a question is open.

Be prepared to discuss specific choices

Explaining why a particular paragraph or structure exists is materially harder to fabricate than the prose itself.

Ask for the named signal, not the label

A specific pattern (step-marker scaffolding, bolding density) can be examined on its own terms. An unexplained score cannot.

This checker is server-side by design: scoring an assignment against DeepSeek's writing patterns requires a model too large to ship into a page, so each check is a single round trip rather than local computation.

That trip is metered: 5 free checks in any rolling 24-hour window, tracked without an account. There is no paid tier behind the limit; it reopens as the window rolls forward. For a full set of coursework across a term, spacing checks across the deadline period works better than exhausting the allowance against one assignment.