Llama essay checker

This tool reads an essay and reports the patterns typical of Llama's writing, Meta's open-weight model, with each signal named and explained rather than compressed into a single score. It exists for a specific, pre-submission question: does my own argument carry the structural habits of Llama, and at what point in the essay.

It's a server tool by necessity. The pattern model is too large to run in a browser, so the essay 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 (a rigid five-paragraph shape, a repeated thesis, a conclusion that only restates the body) so the reasoning is available for inspection rather than taken on faith.

One round trip to the server, then a reasoned result. Run it on a completed draft, not a working outline.

Step 1

Paste the essay as you intend to submit it, introduction through conclusion. 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 building the argument.

Training leaves a statistical fingerprint, and Llama's leans toward a rigid, textbook structure distinctive enough to describe precisely. No single item below is disqualifying alone; the read is a function of how many co-occur across a single argument.

A fixed five-paragraph shape

Intro, three near-identical body paragraphs and a conclusion, applied regardless of whether the topic divides that way.

A thesis repeated at each opener

The same central claim restated almost verbatim at the start of every body paragraph, in place of further development.

Generic, non-committal phrasing

Language calibrated to avoid a specific position, reading as a summary rather than an argued case.

Near-repeated sentences

The same point stated twice in slightly different words within one paragraph.

Lists in place of argument

A prompt calling for a running case answered instead as a bulleted list of facts.

A conclusion that restates each paragraph literally

One sentence per body paragraph, in the original order, rather than a synthesising final point.

Phrasing analysis is one input. Whether the essay actually argues something is a structural question no model answers for you.

Thesis placement

The claim should be locatable in the introduction, not reconstructed from the conclusion.

Single-function paragraphs

Claim, evidence, analysis, and a link back to the thesis, in each paragraph.

Evidence integration

A citation needs a sentence explaining what it demonstrates, not just a reference beside it.

Counterargument handling

An argument that never acknowledges the obvious objection reads thinner than the evidence supports.

Conclusion function

A conclusion that restates the introduction has not synthesised anything; it should do more than summarise.

No, and stating that plainly is more useful than implying otherwise. This tool reports patterns typical of Llama'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 essay.

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 essay writing share these patterns for reasons unrelated to AI, and a serious checker should say so rather than bury it.

A five-paragraph structure is explicitly taught to a large number of writers, and following that instruction faithfully is not evidence of AI use. A writer who restates their thesis at the top of each section, because a writing guide told them to, is doing what they were taught. Cautious, non-committal phrasing on a topic the writer isn't confident arguing is a sign of uncertainty, not a model.

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 an essay 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 paragraph or transition exists is materially harder to fabricate than the prose itself.

Ask for the named signal, not the label

A specific pattern (a repeated thesis, a fixed paragraph shape) can be examined on its own terms. An unexplained score cannot.

This checker is server-side by design: scoring an essay against Llama'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 drafts across a term, spacing checks across the deadline period works better than exhausting the allowance on one essay. The per-run input is capped too, at about 12,000 characters, close to 2,000 words; past that ceiling, check it section by section, with each section spending one of the five checks.