What problem does it solve? Writing a competitive grant proposal requires disciplined structure, the right register, and honest scientific argumentation — and drafts commonly fail because the prose sounds machine-written or the argument has holes that prose is covering. This Skill guides the drafting, revision, and critique of research proposals so each section does its job and weak reasoning is flagged before reviewers find it. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Section-by-section structure: Provides the arc and requirements for Specific Aims, Significance, Innovation, Approach, abstract, and project narrative, including aim design rules (independence, two-sided outcomes, scope limits). - Scientific challenge as you write: Flags claims that do not follow from evidence, missing controls, and inconsistent assumptions, keeps a running open-questions list, and never fabricates citations, numbers, or preliminary results. - Sponsor-rule compliance and register control: Directs reading of sponsor instructions (e.g., NIH R21 mechanics), funded exemplars, and a style note before drafting, and tracks page and line budgets. - Use Case: A PI preparing an NIH R21 application asks for help restructuring their Specific Aims page; the Skill checks the aims skeleton for independence and testability, aligns the draft with the NOFO's page limits and scored factors, and surfaces open questions with each handoff. ## Quick Start Ask the assistant to critique the Specific Aims page of your grant proposal and flag any claims that do not follow from the evidence.
