agentsclimarketplace

Grant writing

Skill jjfroehlich/agent-skills-for-academic-research/skills/grant-writing

Agent skills for academia research: writing, dataviz, publishing, communication, career, and more.

Install
npx -y skills add jjfroehlich/agent-skills-for-academic-research --skill grant-writing

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when the user is planning, drafting, revising, or reviewing a grant or fellowship application, including specific aims, project summaries, significance/innovation/approach sections, funder-fit checks, budget-feasibility alignment, risk/alternative plans, resubmissions, interviews, or reviewer-facing funding narratives. Trigger only when the artifact or decision is part of a funding mechanism; for manuscript peer review, journal submission, general prose editing, or career materials without a funding context, use a different skill.

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

4.6 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Grant Writing

Purpose

Help users turn a funding opportunity and proposal draft into a reviewer-readable, funder-fit, feasible application with clear aims and concrete scoring evidence.

Use this skill when

Use this skill for grant or fellowship applications, specific aims pages, research strategies, project summaries, significance/innovation/approach sections, feasibility and risk reviews, budget-deliverability checks, resubmission planning, and interview preparation for funding mechanisms.

Do not use this skill when

  • The task is about manuscript peer review responses.
  • The task is about journal cover letters or article submission, not funding.
  • The task is general scientific prose editing without a funding context.
  • The task is about career materials unless they are part of a funding application.

Core workflow

  1. Identify the funder, mechanism, required sections, review criteria, audience breadth, deadline, available proposal text, review-team availability, and time left for critique.
  2. Run the funder-fit, compliance, schedule, and internal-review preflight before improving prose.
  3. State the objective and active premise early, then test whether the narrative makes the problem, payoff, approach, and applicant fit visible.
  4. Review significance, innovation, aims, feasibility evidence, budget alignment, risks, alternatives, and reviewer readability.
  5. Return prioritized edits, not generic encouragement: what to move, cut, relabel, evidence, reframe, or verify against the call.

Reference routing

  • Open references/funder-fit-and-compliance.md when scope, eligibility, instructions, templates, assessor criteria, or submission readiness matter.
  • Open references/grant-narrative.md when the central story, objective, premise, section order, or proposal coherence is weak.
  • Open references/specific-aims.md when aims, dependencies, overview figures, approach blocks, or aim-level feasibility are central.
  • Open references/significance-innovation-approach.md when significance, innovation, impact, DEI, ambition, or approach rationale need work.
  • Open references/reviewer-perspective.md when the draft needs panel readability, skim tests, non-specialist framing, reader feedback, or interview preparation.
  • Open references/budget-and-feasibility.md when budget, preliminary data, applicant capacity, risk, alternatives, or future-work integrity are at issue.

Output formats

  • Proposal triage memo with funder-fit, reviewer-risk, and next edits.
  • Specific aims revision plan.
  • Section-level rewrite guidance for significance, innovation, or approach.
  • Feasibility and risk audit.
  • Readiness checklist with pass/fail items, review timeline, and fixes.
  • Template or table for premise, aims, budget, risk-return, or reviewer doubts.

Quick checklist

  • Is the opportunity a real fit, and are current instructions reflected in the draft?
  • Can a reviewer find the objective, premise, significance, innovation, approach, and feasibility evidence quickly?
  • Are aims independent enough, cognitively manageable, and supported by preliminary data or other feasibility evidence?
  • Are risks named with alternatives, rather than hidden?
  • Do figures, headings, topic sentences, and emphasis let a busy reviewer recover the proposal logic?

Common pitfalls

  • Polishing an out-of-scope or noncompliant proposal.
  • Burying the objective under background.
  • Blurring significance, innovation, and approach into one enthusiasm section.
  • Treating preliminary data, CV, budget, impact, or DEI as boilerplate rather than scoring evidence.
  • Calling execution gaps "high risk" when they are actually missing feasibility plans.

Quality bar

  • Ground advice in the user's funder, mechanism, review criteria, and draft text when available.
  • Translate reviewer expectations into concrete edits or checks.
  • Preserve uncertainty about official rules and ask for the current call when compliance is unclear.
  • Avoid generic encouragement unless it is attached to a specific revision action.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.