Write API AI Review
Give automated review a rubric and leave final approval with a person.
An AI review can help identify coverage gaps, inconsistent terminology, and unclear wording. It should not be treated as proof that an article is accurate. Define what the reviewer is expected to inspect and which issues require checking the original evidence or involving a subject specialist.
Separate checks by purpose
Review structure, factual support, voice, formatting, and publication details independently. A valid content schema does not establish that the article is true. A polished opening does not offset a fabricated quotation. Keep high-consequence defects visible instead of hiding them in an average score.
Request actionable findings
A useful finding identifies the passage, the problem, and the evidence or decision needed to resolve it. Ask the review pass to distinguish certainty from suspicion. Avoid automatically applying broad rewrites before a person can compare them with the original draft.
The editor can locate unresolved work and make an informed decision. Record approval against the actual version, and send material later changes back through review rather than reusing an outdated approval.
Take the next step
For a worked editorial approach, read How to choose an LLM for your content workflow. Then explore AI Write API for the connected part of the workflow.