The difference
Most AI tools flatter you. Ours can't.
Skarvia's fact-checker is built to do one thing and refuse the rest: return what's wrong, with evidence, or say nothing's wrong. No praise channel. No rewrite. No confident nonsense.
Try it on a chapter See it for novels
Findings only — no flattery.
A defect card with evidence and a citation, or one quiet line: "No issues found."
It structurally cannot praise
Other tools spend half their output congratulating you. Skarvia's checker returns a schema-constrained list of defects — quote, problem, evidence, source. There is no field for compliments, so it never wastes your time with them.
Every finding faces a skeptic
A candidate finding only reaches you if it survives a second reviewer whose entire job is to refute it. Weak-evidence flags die in that pass — the reason a Skarvia flag is worth stopping for.
Grounded, with receipts
Findings are checked against real sources and carry citations you can follow — not a model's vague recollection. When it says the ZIP code didn't exist yet, it shows you why.
It remembers the whole draft
Beyond outside facts, it tracks your own: the eye colour, the timeline, the prop that changed hands. Contradictions come back as paired quotes — chapter two beside chapter fourteen.
The name fits: skarv is Norwegian for cormorant, the working bird that dives for the catch and brings it back. It does the retrieving. The writing stays yours.
See what a third read missed
Start free and run the checker on a chapter you thought was clean.