Подробное руководство пока доступно на английском языке.
Practical reference
Using AI-assisted writing responsibly
Read the terms above together with these practical explanations of service boundaries, application review, account access and planned paid usage. These notes explain the workflow; they do not add an interview guarantee, admissions promise or new refund policy.
Keep responsibility for the final document
Using an AI writing tool does not transfer responsibility for an application to the tool. You decide which background to provide, which draft to keep, what edits to make and where to submit it. You are responsible for checking whether the employer, university or other recipient accepts the chosen format and permits AI assistance. You should also check that the final text reflects your own experience and does not contain a claim you would be unable to explain or support.
A practical final check covers names, dates, qualifications, programme details, referenced attachments, contact information and any factual statement about the organisation. Remove placeholders and review language quality. If an instruction asks for a strict word limit or specific questions, check those requirements manually even if the draft review reports a convenient count. The application does not submit the document on your behalf or confirm that a recipient has read it. Keep your own submission records and use the recipient’s official process for deadlines, corrections or withdrawals.
Read terms →Use the service for legitimate writing tasks
The intended uses include preparing honest job application letters, university motivation letters and professional emails, together with related editing and research notes. Do not use the service to impersonate another applicant, fabricate credentials, send harassment, expose private information or prepare fraudulent requests. Do not attempt to access another user’s account or manipulate payment notifications to obtain usage you did not purchase. The fact that a model can generate a sentence does not make every requested use appropriate.
Keep your requests connected to your own legitimate task and use sources you are permitted to share. For academic work, respect the institution’s authorship and assistance rules. For professional correspondence, check that you have authority to speak for an organisation before writing in its name. For public reviews, describe your actual experience without publishing someone else’s private details. If a draft introduces harmful, false or inappropriate content, do not send it unchanged. Edit or discard it and reconsider the instructions that led to the response.
Read terms →Use only information you are entitled to share
A resume, screenshot or programme page can contain information about other people. You should have the right to provide the material you use and should avoid uploading confidential employer records, private messages or another applicant’s documents. If a useful example comes from collaborative work, describe your own role without claiming sole ownership of the whole result. If you quote a requirement from a vacancy, use it to explain the application rather than reproduce a large copyrighted document unnecessarily.
The same principle applies to generated writing. Review any named person, organisation, quotation or factual claim before sending it. The model may produce a plausible detail that was never present in your source material. Remove it unless you can establish that it is correct and appropriate to use. For academic applications, follow the institution’s rules about outside assistance and AI use. The service is intended to support honest writing from information you provide; it should not be used to impersonate another person or misrepresent an application.
Read terms →Understand what the application does not guarantee
AI Letter Generator helps organise information and produce editable writing. It does not verify a qualification with an institution, submit an application to an employer, make an admissions decision or guarantee an interview. It does not turn a word count into a validated ATS score. A university summary can collect information, but the official institution remains the authority for requirements and deadlines. Understanding these boundaries makes it easier to use the service effectively and to recognise when you need advice from a person or a primary source.
The draft review tools provide practical checks such as length and common placeholders. Those tools cannot establish that every statement is true, that a programme accepts AI-assisted writing or that an employer prefers your chosen tone. You should make the final judgement with the actual prompt and your own records in front of you. If a decision depends on legal status, immigration requirements, scholarship eligibility or professional licensing, consult the relevant official authority. Use the application as an aid to drafting and organising questions, while keeping responsibility for the final document and its use.
Read terms →Assess generated text rather than assuming originality
AI-generated wording can be generic, resemble common templates or repeat phrases found in many applications. The application does not provide a plagiarism certification or a legal opinion on ownership. The safest practical approach is to make the draft specific to your experience, remove unsupported details and revise language that does not sound like you. A conventional greeting is not the same as a distinctive paragraph copied from someone else’s published work, but you should still review any content you intend to submit or publish.
Do not ask the generator to reproduce an entire paid template, private application or copyrighted article. Use a structure or a short description of the tone you want instead. If your institution has a disclosure requirement for AI assistance, follow it. If an employer asks you to prepare an original response without outside help, respect that condition. The service provides editable assistance and cannot decide every recipient’s rules for you. Your own review, accurate information and appropriate use are essential parts of the workflow.
Read terms →Distinguish access, availability and delivery
An account can provide a profile and a saved-writing library without an active paid plan. A planned pricing package can be displayed while checkout remains unavailable. A completed payment record is different from a waiting invoice, and a waiting invoice must not grant paid access. These distinctions help prevent confusion about what the service has delivered. Check the current interface messages and your account status rather than assuming that visiting a pricing page or opening a checkout creates a subscription.
The planned paid periods are 30-day prepaid access with the shared allowance described on the pricing page. Crypto payments are handled through the integrated provider when purchasing is enabled; they should not be described as an automatic card subscription. A browser redirect after checkout is a navigation event, not independent proof that payment is complete. The backend relies on verified provider status before recording fulfilment. If a purchase is pending or fails, do not send another payment blindly. Inspect the order status and contact support with a non-sensitive reference if necessary.
Read terms →Understand the shared plan allowance
The planned Starter package costs $10 for a 30-day period and allows up to 30 standard letters, 8 premium letters or 5 university research requests. Plus costs $20 and allows up to 70 standard letters, 18 premium letters or 10 research requests. Pro costs $28 and allows up to 100 standard letters, 28 premium letters or 15 research requests. These are alternative maximums from one shared allowance. They are not three separate quantities that can all be used in full during the same period.
Mixed usage reduces the remaining allowance according to the operation you choose. A research request and a standard letter do not consume the same share. The account view shows the remaining practical maximums so you can decide whether another operation fits your available usage. The displayed quantities describe writing usage and are not a cash balance that can be withdrawn. Pro’s published limits are the final agreed limits; another 10 percent is not added again. Paid checkout remains unavailable until the paid generation flow is ready and verified. Read the current pricing page for the actual launch state.
Read pricing →Separate free use from planned paid access
The current writing workspace and the planned paid packages must be described separately. An available editor, browser-local session or existing generation route does not mean that a new paid model tier is already operating. The pricing interface keeps checkout unavailable while the paid entitlement and generation delivery are being prepared. This avoids selling a package merely because the plan cards and payment provider integration exist. Look for the actual availability message in the pricing interface before making assumptions about purchasing access.
When comparing with another service, check its free tier separately from its paid plan. Free access may include different exports, generation counts or document types. A trial can also differ from an ongoing free option. Our comparison does not imply that users must buy a subscription somewhere else to draft a letter. If your immediate need is small, try the available workflow and inspect the result before deciding whether a paid package would provide practical value. Product descriptions should identify what you can use today and what is planned, rather than blur those states together.
Read pricing →Know what to do when a request does not work
A failed generation can come from a provider issue, an unavailable page, an unreadable upload or incomplete inputs. Keep your source information before retrying. Check whether the error concerns generation, university research, keyword extraction or saving a document, because those operations can fail independently. If the first response is simply vague, improve the brief rather than assuming there was a technical failure. A request that produces poor wording is different from a request that never completes.
If saving fails, keep a local copy of your text and try saving again after checking your connection. A message about an expired session means you need to sign in again before saving to your account. If the problem concerns a paid operation, check the actual account status rather than assuming that a success message on another page describes your current access. Contact support with non-sensitive context if a problem persists. Never send an API key, password or complete payment credential in a support message. Save the text you want to keep before refreshing a working editor.
Manage your writing accountCheck university research against official sources
University information can change between application cycles. Deadlines, tuition, scholarship conditions, document requirements and programme availability should be confirmed on the institution’s own website. An AI research summary is a convenient starting point for organising information, but it is not an official admissions decision. Open the source links, check the academic year and note whether the information applies to your nationality, qualification level and study mode. If a summary has no source for an important claim, treat that claim as unresolved.
Use research notes to record the programme URL, the question you were trying to answer and the information you verified. Keep a distinction between a published fact and your own interpretation. “The page lists a language test requirement” is different from “I meet that requirement.” If two official pages conflict, contact the admissions office rather than asking an AI model to choose one. Saved account notes help you revisit the evidence later, but you must check it again before relying on a deadline or fee. Research access shown in a planned paid package should not be mistaken for an admissions guarantee.
Read features →Review and edit before using a draft
The review step is where an AI response becomes your document. Start by checking the basic facts: name, role, institution, dates, skills and qualifications. Then check the argument: does each paragraph help the reader understand why you are applying? Remove repeated claims, broad praise and sentences that could belong to anyone. Replace them with your own details where those details are relevant. A generated draft is editable in the workspace; you do not have to accept its original wording or order.
The draft review tools show word and character counts and can flag common placeholders. Those checks are practical editing aids, not a guarantee that the document is accurate or suitable. A letter can have the right length and still contain a wrong programme name. It can have no placeholders and still sound generic. Read the text aloud and compare it with the actual application instructions. If possible, ask another person to review the final version. The responsibility for submitting an honest and appropriate application stays with you, even when the first draft was prepared with AI assistance.
Read features →Keep login and payment credentials private
Your account password is used by the authentication service, not as part of a letter prompt. Never place it in custom instructions, a saved document, a review or a support message. The browser obtains a short-lived signed token for protected account requests, and the server verifies that token before accessing account data. A valid identity still does not authorise reading another user’s documents. Resource ownership is checked in the database operations as well as in the interface.
Crypto wallet access details, private keys and recovery phrases are unrelated to the application’s writing features and should never be shared with it. The payment integration creates provider checkout information without asking you to disclose a wallet recovery phrase. If a payment or account error appears, describe the problem with a non-sensitive order reference or screenshot that hides credentials. Public configuration such as the application’s auth service URL is different from a private API key. The application’s provider secrets belong on the server and must not be copied into public content or frontend fields.
Read privacy →Turn experience into useful evidence
A strong letter explains what you did, the situation in which you did it and why it matters to this reader. Instead of “I have excellent communication skills,” describe how you answered recurring customer questions, organised a handover or explained a technical issue to a colleague. Numbers help when you can verify them, but they are optional. A precise description without a percentage is more credible than a dramatic metric you cannot support. Projects, volunteering, coursework and responsibilities outside paid work can also provide relevant examples.
Try making a three-column note before generating: requirement, evidence, connection. For a role asking for attention to detail, your evidence might be checking weekly inventory records; the connection is that you can identify inconsistencies before they reach a customer. Include two or three strong connections rather than every task you have ever completed. After generation, check that the draft preserves the scale of your contribution. “Helped prepare” must not quietly become “led the department.” You should recognise your own experience in every paragraph.
Read guides →Expect product details to be checked over time
Product availability, model routes, provider pricing and university information can change. The application should distinguish a current feature from a planned one, and comparison pages should identify the selected plans and source links. A historical research note is useful context, but it is not proof that a price or requirement remains unchanged. Before relying on a comparison for a purchase or a research summary for an application, open the current official source and confirm the relevant detail.
The privacy policy and terms may also be updated to reflect changes in storage, account features or service delivery. Review those pages when a new feature changes the way you use the application. If a description appears inconsistent with the actual interface, ask support for clarification and avoid submitting unnecessary sensitive information while the issue is unresolved. This is a practical way to use an evolving service without treating old screenshots or planning discussions as a permanent product specification. Saved drafts remain your working text; they should be rechecked when the application context changes.
Read about →A final checklist before sending
Open the actual application instructions and compare them with the document you intend to send. Confirm the correct recipient, role or programme, the deadline and the requested format. Read the first paragraph without the rest of the letter: does it identify the opportunity and give a specific reason for interest? Read each evidence paragraph separately: can you explain and support its claims? Read the close: is the next step polite, realistic and appropriate? Remove unnecessary repetition and any remaining template placeholders.
Next, inspect the exported file or the text pasted into the destination form. Check formatting, language characters, paragraph breaks and attachments. Make sure you have not selected a version meant for another organisation. Keep a copy for your own records and note the date and destination after submission. A letter generator can reduce the work of starting and revising, but the last check should happen in the actual context where the document will be used. A careful final review protects the value of all the preparation you have already done.
Read guides →