No Film School’s Jason Hellerman ran well-known screenplays through an AI analysis service and found buggy reports, weak story reads and questionable market predictions
The Promise Of Instant Coverage
Script coverage is one of the quiet engines of the film and television industry. Readers at studios, agencies, production companies and competitions read screenplays and write summaries and evaluations that help executives decide what to pursue. Coverage is time-consuming and labour-intensive, which makes it an obvious target for automation. Several AI services now promise to analyse screenplays in minutes. In April 2026, No Film School writer Jason Hellerman tested one of them in an article headlined I tested the AI development tool Quilty, humans have nothing to worry about.
The Test
Quilty markets itself as offering Hollywood-level insight into screenplays. Hellerman ran well-known scripts through the service, including John Wick and Hit Man, films whose quality and commercial performance are already established. That approach is a useful way to test a coverage tool: if it cannot recognize the strengths of scripts that went on to become successful films, its judgments about unknown scripts are hard to trust.
According to his report, the results were disappointing. He found buggy reports, weak readings of story and questionable predictions about market potential. His subtitle captured his frustration: he was pleading with development executives to just do the work, or find a better shortcut.
Why Human Readers Matter
Good coverage requires more than summarizing a plot. A skilled reader assesses whether characters are compelling, whether the structure builds tension, whether the dialogue sounds distinctive, whether the concept is fresh and whether the script fits the needs of a particular buyer. Those judgments depend on taste, experience and an understanding of the market, as well as a feel for how a script will play on screen.
Many successful films looked unusual on the page. Scripts that break conventions, take risks with tone or structure, or rely on a director’s vision can confound formulaic analysis. A system trained to recognize patterns may undervalue exactly the originality that makes some scripts special.
The Readers’ Fear
Script readers themselves have been anxious about AI. Variety reported in 2025 on a group of Hollywood script readers who feared they could be replaced by AI and set up a test to see who gives better feedback. Reading jobs have long been an entry point into the industry for aspiring writers and executives. If AI coverage displaces them, the industry could lose not only experienced readers but a training ground for future talent.
The Risks For Writers
For screenwriters, AI coverage raises several concerns. If buyers or competitions use automated tools to screen scripts, a writer’s work could be rejected by a system that misunderstands it. Writers who pay for AI feedback on their own scripts may receive misleading notes, pushing them toward generic choices. And uploading scripts to AI services raises questions about how that material is stored and whether it might be used to train models, an issue the Writers Guild has sought to address in its contracts.
There is also a question of accountability. When a human reader passes on a script, there is a person whose judgment can be questioned, discussed and refined over time. When an automated system scores a script poorly, the reasoning may be opaque, and there may be no one to explain or reconsider the decision. For writers whose careers depend on a fair reading, that lack of transparency is troubling.
Coverage also shapes careers beyond any single script. Readers who spot a promising voice often flag writers for future projects, recommend them to colleagues and remember them years later. That human memory and advocacy is part of how new talent is discovered. An automated score cannot champion a writer in a meeting.
Where AI Might Help
That does not mean AI tools have no role. Some writers use them for narrow tasks, such as checking formatting, generating a rough synopsis or identifying inconsistencies in character names and timelines. Used carefully, as a supplement rather than a substitute, such tools may save time. The problem arises when they are marketed, or used, as replacements for informed human judgment about story and quality.
Getting Better Feedback
For writers seeking feedback, the alternatives remain human: trusted writer friends, writing groups, professional readers with relevant experience and the evaluations offered by competitions, fellowships and platforms such as the Black List. No Film School has compiled resources on coverage services for writers comparing options. Whatever the source, the most valuable feedback comes from readers who understand both craft and market, and who can explain not only what is wrong but why.
A Note On Shortcuts
Hellerman’s plea to development executives to do the work points to a broader concern. Development depends on reading, discussing and championing scripts. If the industry leans too heavily on automated shortcuts, it risks missing the unusual voices and risky stories that have often produced its most memorable work. Efficiency is valuable, but not at the expense of discovery.
The Takeaway
AI coverage tools are improving and will continue to be marketed to writers and buyers. But on the evidence of tests like Hellerman’s, they are not yet capable of reliably evaluating screenplays. For now, the most useful readers of a script are still people: people who love stories, understand the business and can recognize when something original deserves a chance. Writers should seek them out, and the industry should keep investing in them.