grant-proposal-assistant_skill

Overview

This skill guides writing and reviewing competitive grant proposals for NIH (R01, R21, K-series), NSF, and foundation applications. It focuses on developing a testable central hypothesis, a reviewer-friendly Specific Aims page, clear Significance and Innovation statements, and a feasible, well-controlled Approach. The goal is to catch common reviewer critiques early and increase fundability.

How this skill works

I inspect proposals against four core questions: central hypothesis, urgency/impact, genuine innovation, and feasibility. I walk each section (Specific Aims, Significance, Innovation, Approach per aim) with templates and checklists, flagging vague hypotheses, aim dependencies, missing controls, inadequate stats, and compliance issues. I also simulate a reviewer perspective and produce actionable edits, prioritized fixes, and a short compliance checklist.

When to use it

• Drafting or polishing Specific Aims (1-page)
• Writing Significance, Innovation, or Approach sections
• Preparing NIH R01, R21, K-series, NSF, or foundation submissions
• Pre-submission peer review or mock study section preparation
• Resubmission addressing reviewer critiques
• Aligning budget/justification with proposed work

Best practices

• State a falsifiable, testable central hypothesis on page one
• Make aims largely independent so the project survives single failures
• Be specific about the gap and quantify impact where possible
• List explicit innovations (conceptual, methodological, application) in bullets
• Include expected outcomes, controls, power/sample-size rationale, and alternatives for each aim
• Run a final compliance check: page limits, biosketch formats, required components

Example use cases

• Turn a research idea and preliminary data into a polished Specific Aims page ready for submission
• Review an R01 draft to identify vague hypotheses, missing controls, and aim dependencies
• Restructure an Approach section per aim with rationale, methods, expected outcomes, pitfalls, and alternatives
• Prepare responses and revisions for a resubmission addressing reviewer critiques
• Quick compliance and page-limit audit before deadline