Write Proposal

v3.4 — Added donor intelligence context (meeting transcripts + Gmail) to Step 3 v3.x — Auto-loaded project context, donor profile lookup, template gate as the single hard stop v3.0 — Restructured to Input Checklist → Auto-Gather Context → Donor Profile → Context Brief → Analyze → Draft

Draft a funding proposal from structured inputs, using a project's voice pack, project context, and donor intelligence. Use when drafting funding proposals, LOIs, or project summaries for grant applications.

Overview

This skill produces a first draft of a funding proposal in markdown. The flow: Input Checklist → Auto-Gather Context → Donor Profile → Context Brief → Analyze & Plan → Draft → Save → Update Donor Profile → Log.

The voice pack loads automatically. Context gathering runs automatically after the checklist to provide richer inputs without manual effort.

Pre-approved tools: Google Workspace MCP and filesystem reads. Call them directly — no Task agents.

Voice Pack (Optional)

If you maintain a voice pack with your writing style:

@~/.claude-assistant/voice/PROPOSAL_VOICE.md
@~/.claude-assistant/voice/PROPOSAL_EXAMPLES.md

Create these files with your own writing style preferences: sentence length, active vs. passive voice, hedging rules, formatting conventions. If not found, the skill warns and continues with general academic voice rules.

Instructions

Step 1: Input Checklist (start here — this is the skill's primary value)

Present this checklist immediately and collect all inputs before proceeding. This catches missing documents early — the single most important thing this skill does.

PROPOSAL INPUT CHECKLIST

REQUIRED:
1. [ ] Funder name and program: ___
2. [ ] Application template / form fields / guidelines
      (Defines the structure. Without it, the draft may need restructuring.)
3. [ ] Research design document or project overview
4. [ ] Budget ceiling or range: ___
5. [ ] Deadline: ___

IF RESUBMISSION:
6. [ ] Previous submission file
7. [ ] Reviewer comments

RECOMMENDED:
8. [ ] Strategic framing notes (what to emphasize/downplay for this funder)

AUTO-LOADED (skill finds these automatically):
9.  [x] Team roster and roles (from project config)
10. [x] Project status and progress (from project config)
11. [x] Strategic priorities (from project config)
12. [x] Related proposals to other funders (auto-scanned for consistency)
13. [x] Donor profile (if available)

For each missing REQUIRED item, ask the user once. If they say "skip" or "don't have it," note the gap and proceed. Flag in the output what couldn't be addressed.

For items provided as file paths, read them immediately.

Step 2: Auto-Gather Context

After collecting checklist inputs, automatically gather project context. Each source has a word budget to prevent context window bloat. Total cap: ~8,000 words of gathered context.

Skip this step if the user passes skipcontext.

Do NOT read raw transcripts. The weekly review already synthesizes them. If the most recent weekly review is >14 days old, prompt: "The last weekly review is from [date]. Consider running /weekly-review first to ensure current context. Continue anyway? [Y/run weekly-review first]"

Graceful degradation: If any source is unavailable (no Google Doc configured, no prior submissions found, MCP fails), note it and continue. Never block on a missing optional source.

Step 3: Donor Profile Lookup

1. Check for a donor profile at ~/.claude-assistant/donors/[funder-slug].md
2. If found: Read it. Display "What They Value" and "What to Avoid" to the user. Check freshness — if next_review_date has passed, display: "Donor profile for [funder] may be outdated (last reviewed [date]). Proceeding with current info — consider running /donor-profile [funder] refresh after this session."
3. If not found: Display: "No donor profile found for [funder]. Run /donor-profile [funder] to create one, or continue without it." Flag the gap in the context brief.

Do NOT do web research mid-workflow. The /donor-profile skill handles that separately.

Step 3b: Donor Interaction History (if profile found)

If a donor profile was found in Step 3, also search for recent interactions to add context:

1. Meeting search: If you have a meeting-notes integration (e.g., Granola), search by funder name. If results found, read the 1-2 most recent transcripts. Extract: key decisions, program officer guidance, framing feedback, any commitments made.
2. Gmail search: search_gmail_messages with query "[funder name]" newer_than:180d. Read top 2-3 relevant threads. Extract: correspondence, stated priorities, feedback, relationship signals.

Add findings to the Context Brief under a "Donor Interactions" row. This is passive context — display it, don't gate on it.

If the profile is thin (<50 lines or missing "What They Value" / "What to Avoid"): add one line to the Context Brief: "Note: [funder] profile is thin — consider /donor-profile [funder] refresh after this draft."

Skip Step 3b if: no profile found, skipcontext flag passed, or no meeting/email integrations available.

Step 4: Context Brief

After gathering context, present a summary. Skip if the user passes skipbrief (but the template gate below still fires).

CONTEXT BRIEF

Sources gathered:
- Project config: [loaded/not found]
- Weekly review: [date] ([current/stale — last N days])
- Prior [funder] submission: [filename(s) or "none found"]
- Donor profile: [loaded (last reviewed [date]) / not found]
- Consistency ref: [filenames scanned / "none found"] ([N] bullets extracted)
- Google Doc: [loaded / unavailable]
- Donor interactions: [N transcripts, N email threads / skipped / none found]

Funder alignment (from donor profile, if available):
- Emphasize: [key points]
- Our angles: [specific project fit]
- Avoid: [key warnings]

Gaps that would improve the proposal:
1. [List anything missing that would strengthen the draft]

TEMPLATE GATE (HARD STOP): If no application template or RFP was provided in Step 1:

"No application template or RFP provided. Without it, the draft structure may not match what the funder expects, requiring a full rewrite. Provide the template now, or type 'proceed without template' to continue at risk."

This is the single hard stop in the workflow. Everything else is informational.

Step 5: Parse Arguments

Read $ARGUMENTS and conversation context for:

• Funder name (required)
• Whether this is a resubmission
• File paths to template, previous submission, reviewer comments
• Budget ceiling, deadline
• Voice variant (voice:plain or voice:budget — default: technical)
• dryrun — show plan and structure without drafting
• skipcontext — bypass auto-gather (Step 2)
• skipbrief — bypass context brief display (Step 4), but template gate still fires
• profile:create — redirect to /donor-profile [funder] instead of writing

Step 6: Analyze and Plan

If the user is in plan mode or enters plan mode: This step happens naturally through plan mode. The skill complements plan mode — don't duplicate what plan mode already does. Focus on: mapping template sections to content, noting word/page limits, and identifying the 2-3 strongest arguments for this funder (informed by the donor profile).

If NOT in plan mode, do this analysis yourself:

1. Map the application template sections to available content
2. Identify gaps (write from scratch vs. adapt existing)
3. Note word/page limits
4. Identify the 2-3 strongest arguments for this specific funder

For resubmissions, show a brief reviewer analysis:

Reviewer Comment Analysis:

MUST ADDRESS (N):
1. [Comment] → Section: [X] → Plan: [fix]

SHOULD ADDRESS (N):
1. [Comment] → Section: [X] → Plan: [fix]

DISAGREE (N):
1. [Comment] → Reason: [why]

New evidence since last submission:
- [List]

Wait for user confirmation on the reviewer analysis before drafting. This is the one strategic alignment point worth pausing for.

Step 7: Draft the Proposal

Structure: Follow the application template if provided. If no template, use:

1. Introduction and Background (problem -> gap -> contribution)
2. Methodology and Research Approach
   - Setting
   - Intervention
   - Research Design
   - Outcomes
3. Progress and Preliminary Results
4. Timeline
5. Budget Justification (if requested)
6. Team and Capacity
7. References

Voice rules (enforced throughout):

• First paragraph does real work: problem + stakes (with a number) -> what's new -> what this project does
• Topic sentences make claims, not background
• Numbers over adjectives ("43.6% report moderate-to-severe symptoms" not "many students")
• Active voice, short sentences
• No throat-clearing ("In this proposal...", "This section describes...")
• Hedge only with a reason or number
• Implementation details: who, what, when
• End sections with the ask or next step

For resubmissions:

• Address every MUST ADDRESS comment — improve the section directly, don't call out "the reviewer said..."
• Weave progress since last submission into the narrative
• Update the opening if the strategic framing changed

Budget section (if applicable):

• Cost-per-unit framing ("$30 per endline survey", "$3.50 per screening")
• Name specific cost drivers
• Link costs to outputs, not activities

Step 8: Save and Brief

Save the draft to: 05_Submissions/Grants/[Funder]_[Year]_Draft.md

File header:

# [Full Proposal Title]
## DRAFT — [Date]

**PI:** [Name] ([Institution])
**Co-PIs:** [Names] ([Institutions])
**Total Budget:** [Amount or PLACEHOLDER]
**Proposed Period:** [Dates]
**Funder:** [Funder name and program]
**Deadline:** [Date]


## Revision Notes

**Draft created:** [date] by `/proposal-write`
**Context sources read:**
- Weekly review: [filename and date]
- Donor profile: [filename and version date]
- Prior submissions: [list files consulted]
- Google Doc: [yes/no]
- Consistency refs: [list files scanned]
**Inputs used:**
- [List all user-provided documents]
**Reviewer comments addressed:** [count] of [total] (if resubmission)
**Gaps / placeholders:**
- [List any PLACEHOLDER markers]
- [List sections needing human review]
**Voice:** [Technical / Plain-language / Budget narrative]

After saving, report:

Draft saved to: [filepath]

Sections: [list with approximate word counts]
Total: ~[N] words
Placeholders remaining: [count] — [list each with what's needed]
Reviewer comments addressed: [X of Y] (resubmission only)

Next steps:
1. Review and edit the draft
2. Fill in budget figures / placeholders
3. Run /proposal-revise with collaborator feedback
4. Run /review-methodology on the Methods section for design validation
5. Run /review-writing on the full draft for voice/clarity check

Step 9: Update Donor Profile

After saving the draft, add a Submission History entry to the donor profile:

• Date: today
• Project: current project name
• Amount: budget amount from the draft
• Status: "Draft complete"
• Notes: brief note

Also update the donor profile's Quick Reference:

• "Last contact" → today's date
• "Next action" → "Review and submit [funder] proposal by [deadline]"

Then prompt: "Update the project's Funding Pipeline table too? [Y/n]" If yes, read the project's PROJECT_INDEX.md and add/update the funder row with Status: "Drafting".

If no donor profile exists, skip this step (don't create one mid-workflow).

Step 10: Performance Logging

Append a row to your skill-performance log (skip if log directory not found):

[date],write-proposal,[approx tool calls],[brief notes: funder, sources gathered, dryrun/full]

Arguments

$ARGUMENTS — natural language is fine. Common flags:

• Funder name (required)
• resubmission — revision of previous submission
• template:path — application template file
• previous:path — previous submission file
• comments:path — reviewer comments file
• budget:N — budget ceiling in USD
• deadline:YYYY-MM-DD
• voice:plain or voice:budget
• dryrun — show plan without drafting
• skipcontext — bypass auto-gather context
• skipbrief — bypass context brief display
• profile:create — redirect to /donor-profile [funder]

Examples

/proposal-write "Example Foundation" deadline:2026-06-01
/proposal-write "Impact Funder" template:~/Downloads/template.pdf budget:150000
/proposal-write "Foundation X" resubmission deadline:2026-02-19
/proposal-write "Foundation Y" voice:plain
/proposal-write "Foundation Z" dryrun

Error Handling

• If no funder name: "Usage: /proposal-write <funder> [options]. Funder name is required."
• If no application template: HARD STOP — template gate fires (see Step 4)
• If project config missing: "No .claude/CLAUDE.md found. Run from a configured project directory, or provide project context manually."
• If voice pack files not found: Warn and continue with general voice rules
• If Google Doc MCP unavailable: Note and continue
• If weekly review stale (>14 days): Warn and offer to run /weekly-review first

Customization Points

To set up this skill for your workflow:

1. Voice pack location: The @~/.claude-assistant/voice/ references point to writing style files. Create your own with sentence length preferences, hedging rules, and formatting conventions, or remove these lines to use general academic voice.
2. Folder paths (Steps 2 and 8): The paths 05_Submissions/Grants/, the weekly-reviews directory, and ~/.claude-assistant/donors/ reflect one folder naming convention. Update all paths to match your own project structure.
3. Save location (Step 8): Default 05_Submissions/Grants/[Funder]_[Year]_Draft.md — change to your own drafts directory.
4. Word budgets (Step 2): The context-gathering word budgets (8,000 total) are calibrated for long proposals. For LOIs or short applications, reduce budgets proportionally.
5. Donor interaction integrations (Step 3b): The meeting-search step assumes a meeting-notes MCP. If you don't have one, the step skips silently. The Gmail search also degrades gracefully.