For content ops teams reviewing too many AI drafts

Every review makes the next draft better

You keep giving the same note: tighten the headline, fix the tone, say what happens next. Typescape turns those corrections into review memory your AI can load before it writes, so the third pass is faster than the first.

Start reviewing — free See the compounding loop

15 reviews/month free · No credit card · Unlimited reviewers

I spend 20 minutes rewriting every AI draft and then realize I would have been faster doing it myself.

Content Ops Lead, Series B SaaS

The issue was not 'I need a smarter model.' The issue was 'I need a repeatable process.'

Agency Founder, 12 clients

Without structural controls, every AI output drifts a little. After 40 drafts you can't tell whose voice it is.

Brand Manager, Healthcare

Proof, not product theater

One review creates three things your next draft can actually use

A comment thread is not enough. Typescape gives your team anchored feedback, a portable export, and a rule when a note keeps repeating. That is the difference between review as cleanup and review as memory.

We don't ask if it's AI. We ask if it's good.

typescape.ai/app/reviews
2

Anchored note

Hero CTA

"Get started" is too vague. Say what starts next and keep the tone direct.

Reusable export

Passage
Hero CTA
Severity
Needs revision
Why it failed
The action is generic and hides the value.

Published rule

Headlines and CTAs must say what starts next.

Prefer "Start your first review" over "Get started."

1. Anchored feedback

Reviewers mark the exact passage that needs work.

The note stays attached to the text it is fixing instead of getting lost in a general thread.

2. Portable output

The review becomes structured output your workflow can reuse.

Export findings, move them through a pipeline, or feed them back into the next draft automatically.

3. Compounding rules

Repeated notes become memory instead of recurring cleanup.

Once the fix keeps showing up, promote it once and start from the corrected standard.

The compounding loop

Four steps. No second product. Just more memory each round.

The surface can stay simple. What matters is that each review makes the next draft start closer to done.

  1. 01

    Submit the draft

    Paste markdown, upload a file, or pull from your repo. Share one link and start reviewing.

  2. 02

    Anchor the feedback

    Every note stays attached to the passage it is fixing, not buried in a generic comment pile.

  3. 03

    Export or promote

    Use the review output now, or promote the repeated note into a rule the team can keep.

  4. 04

    Start the next draft smarter

    The next pass begins with what the reviewer already taught instead of relearning it from zero.

Start where you are

From quick review to audit-ready review memory

Typescape is one product with a maturity curve, not four products stitched together. Start at the rung you need today and add structure only when the work starts repeating.

Quick review

I just need someone to review my markdown.

Paste the content, share a magic link, and collect comments. No repo, no setup, no training.

freemagic linkszero setup

Quality gate

My AI drafts need a check before they go live.

Create a review from your pipeline, export the findings, and stop re-explaining the same fixes every publish cycle.

exportautomationfewer repeats

Agency

Each client needs its own voice and its own rules.

Separate workspaces keep standards from bleeding across clients while the review loop still compounds inside each account.

workspace isolationrulesclient memory

Compliance

We need every finding to hold up under audit.

Install a quality pack, review against clear standards, and keep a durable record for regulated teams.

quality packsaudit trailregulated content

Use it however you work

Start with the link. Add CLI, MCP, or API when the loop is worth automating.

Same review output. Same rules. Same team memory. The surface can change without the review logic changing with it.

Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, VS Code, Amp, or any MCP-compatible client.

CLI

Create reviews and move exports through scripts or pipelines.

typescape review create --file blog.md
typescape review export --format json

MCP

Give your coding agent the same review output your team trusts.

typescape_create_review
typescape_export_findings
typescape_get_rules

REST API

Use the same envelopes in your own automations and queues.

POST /v1/reviews
GET  /v1/reviews/:id/export
GET  /v1/rules?scope=workspace

Priced for review work, not seats

Unlimited reviewers on every plan

People who give feedback should not be the expensive part. Pay for review volume, keep the team open, and bring CLI, API, and MCP access with you on every tier.

Free

$0

15 reviews/month

For individuals or first runs that just need a clean review loop.

  • Unlimited reviewers
  • Magic-link sharing
  • Export + CLI + MCP + API
Start reviewing

Pro

$79 /mo

100 reviews/month

Best once the same notes are showing up every week and you want them to stick.

  • Everything in Free
  • Rules workspace + publishing
  • Revision lineage
  • Repository integrations
Try free for 14 days

Scale

$249 /mo

500 reviews/month

For agencies or multi-team operators managing separate voices and separate rule memory.

  • Everything in Pro
  • 5 rule workspaces
  • Multi-tenant isolation
  • Priority support
Try free for 14 days

Questions teams ask before they switch

Common objections, answered plainly

How is this different from Google Docs comments?
Google Docs comments disappear when the review is over. Typescape keeps feedback attached to the passage, makes it exportable, and lets repeated notes become rules the next draft can load before review even starts.
Do reviewers need accounts?
No. Send a magic link, verify once by email, and they are in. The review can start without asking everyone to adopt a new tool first.
Is this an AI content detector?
No. It is a review system. We do not ask whether a machine wrote the draft. We ask whether the draft meets your standard.
What about Notion, HackMD, or other collaborative editors?
Those are good writing tools. Typescape handles the review layer: anchored feedback, exportable review output, and rules that carry forward. Write there if you want. Review here when the feedback needs to stick.
What if I don't use AI to write content?
It still works. Any team that reviews the same kind of content repeatedly can benefit from keeping the feedback, the export, and the rule memory intact.
Can I use this with my existing agent or LLM?
Yes. Bring any model or agent. Typescape is the review layer, not the model choice. That is why the same review output is available through the app, CLI, MCP, and API.
How is this different from Grammarly or Writer?
Those tools enforce preset rules. Typescape captures your reviewers' judgment, keeps the note attached to the passage, and turns the recurring fix into something your next draft can use.

Try the loop on a real draft

Start with one review. Keep the note that repeats.

The first review gives you feedback. The next one should cost less. That is the point.

Start reviewing — free Request a demo