An AI-powered editorial assessment tool for fiction writers at any stage of revision. Structured, honest feedback on query letters, opening pages, and full manuscripts — in minutes, at a price point that fits into a real revision process.
Querying agents is one of the most opaque processes in publishing. Writers spend months or years drafting a novel, then face a step they've had almost no practice with: distilling that novel into a 300-word pitch that has to compete against hundreds of other queries hitting an agent's inbox the same week.
Most queries fail not because the book is weak, but because the query buries the hook, the opening pages don't deliver on the pitch, or the comp titles signal the wrong lane. These are fixable problems. They're hard to see in your own work.
The traditional paths to getting help with this have real gaps. Beta readers and critique partners are invaluable but rarely familiar with the agent's perspective. Freelance developmental editors are excellent but expensive and slow. Paid workshops and query critique services are useful but variable in quality and availability.
The same gap exists earlier in the process. Writers in revision often can't get the kind of honest, full-manuscript reader response they need. Beta readers are slow, inconsistent, and often too kind to deliver the feedback that would actually help. Editors are excellent but cost more than most writers can afford to pay during revision.
What's been missing: fast, affordable, structured assessment that gives writers an honest read on their work at the moments when honest feedback is hardest to get.
Request the Full fills that gap.
The framework draws on standard industry knowledge: what makes a query letter functional, what agents look for in opening pages, how comp titles signal market positioning, how voice and interiority distinguish a strong submission from a competent one. This is the same criteria taught in MFA programs, written about by working agents, and applied by every professional reading submissions.
The platform applies this framework consistently and quickly. A human reader brings expertise and intuition. A structured assessment brings consistency and speed. They're different tools for different moments in your process.
The output is honest. The system surfaces concerns, it doesn't flatter. A report that tells you your package is ready when it isn't would actively harm your querying chances. So if your query buries the hook, the report says so. If your opening pages don't deliver on the pitch, the report says so. If the word count is going to be a problem for agents, the report tells you why and by how much.
That honesty is the whole product. Writers don't pay for assessment to be told they're great. They pay to find out where the real problems are while there's still time to fix them.
This isn't an editor. The platform doesn't rewrite your work, line edit your prose, or develop your characters. It evaluates what you've written and reports on how it's likely to land with an agent or a reader.
This isn't a guarantee. No tool can predict whether a specific agent will request your manuscript. Agents have specific tastes, markets shift, and the same query can succeed at one agency and fail at another. What this platform offers is a clearer picture of whether your work is competitive before you send it.
This isn't a replacement for human readers. Beta readers, critique partners, and editors bring things AI can't — emotional response over weeks, specific genre expertise, relationship to your work over time. Use these assessments alongside human feedback, not instead of it.
This isn't a writing tool. The system doesn't generate text or rewrite passages. It reads what you submit and reports on it. The work you query with is entirely your work.
Request the Full is an assessment tool, not a generative one. The system reads your work and tells you what it sees. It doesn't write your query, rewrite your pages, or produce content that ends up in your manuscript.
This is the same category as software that checks grammar, analyzes pacing, or evaluates reading level — tools that look at what you've written and report on it. The output is information, not text.
Used well, an assessment tool helps writers see their work more clearly before sending it out. Used badly — to replace your own voice and revision instincts with AI-smoothed prose — it works against you. The work you submit to agents has to be yours.
Most writers don't use the assessment once. They use it iteratively — submit, take the feedback, revise, and reassess to see whether the revision landed. Some writers iterate three or four times before they feel confident sending their package to agents.
The three products are designed to work at different moments in the revision process.
The Beta Reader Assessment is for writers earlier in revision who want a reader's reaction to the full manuscript — what worked, where attention drifted, who they cared about, what stayed with them. It's the report you'd want from a thoughtful beta reader who actually finished the book and had specific things to say about it.
The First 15K Assessment goes deep on the opening 15,000 words of the manuscript — pacing, character development, story viability, where readers get stuck. It's the right tool when the bigger structural questions are settled and you want to know whether the opening is doing its work.
The Query Assessment focuses on the submission package agents see first — query letter, pitch, and opening pages. It's the right tool when you're preparing to send to agents and want to know whether your package is competitive.
Writers can start with any of the three depending on where they are. Many use all three across the arc of a revision: Beta Reader for the full-manuscript reader response, First 15K when refining the opening, Query Assessment before sending to agents. By the time they query, they've stress-tested the manuscript, the opening, and the pitch.
Submissions are processed through OpenAI's commercial API, which doesn't use submitted content for model training. Your work is not stored after the report is generated. Your report is private and never shared. No "AI fingerprint" appears on your final query or pages — agents see only what you choose to send them. You retain 100% of your copyright; submitting work to an assessment tool doesn't affect ownership.
Full details in the Privacy Policy.
If you're preparing to query and want an honest read on whether your package is competitive, start with the Query Assessment.
If you're focused on the opening of your manuscript and want feedback on whether the first pages are doing their work, start with the First 15K Assessment.
If you want a reader's full-manuscript reaction — what worked, where attention drifted, what stayed with them — start with the Beta Reader Assessment.
Questions about whether this is right for you? Check the FAQ or reach out.