Reference Letter Strength Grader

If your lecturer said "draft it yourself and I'll sign it," this is where you make sure that draft doesn't sound like every other generic letter a scholarship panel has already rejected. Paste your draft below, and it'll flag the tired phrases and hand you a stronger, evidence-based alternative for each one.

—

AI-writing pattern check

0%
This is a heuristic pattern-check, not a certified AI-detection service — it looks for writing patterns often associated with AI-generated text (uniform sentence length, formulaic phrasing, generic transitions, thin specific detail). It can be wrong in either direction. It matters here for a specific reason: if a letter you've drafted for a lecturer to sign reads as obviously AI-generated, a screening panel may doubt its authenticity even if every fact in it is true — so a high score here is worth fixing regardless of whether a tool actually wrote it.

What to fix, and what to write instead

Why generic letters lose scholarships

A screening panel reading thousands of applications sees the same handful of phrases over and over: "very good boy," "hardworking student," "highly recommend without any reservation." None of it is false, exactly — it's just unprovable. It gives the panel nothing to weigh you against the other applicants.

What actually moves a letter from forgettable to persuasive:

  • A number or comparison — a class rank, a grade, a percentage — something the panel can weigh.
  • A named piece of work — a project title, a course code, a specific assignment — proof the referee actually engaged with your work, not just your attendance.
  • An action verb, not a trait — "demonstrated," "designed," "led," "analyzed" instead of "is," "was," "has."

This tool flags patterns, not grammar or plagiarism — it won't catch every weak sentence, and a flagged phrase isn't automatically wrong in every context. Use it as a first pass, then read the letter aloud once more before it goes to your referee for signing.