grant-writing
Skill135 starsChanged 26 days agoMITView on GitHub
You must use this when drafting grant proposals, refining research aims, or aligning projects with agency priorities.
9 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- sbfnk/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- BuildHarbor/sciagent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- jjfroehlich/agent-skills-for-academic-researchtheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- jjfroehlich/agent-handbook-for-life-science-researchtheir own version, first seen Oct 9, 2026
- borgr/erc-reviewtheir own version, first seen Sep 11, 2026
- Pratikrishi97/sciagent-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 29, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use scientific-writing.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
ZanderRussSkillscientific-writing
Core skill for the deep research and writing tool. Write scientific manuscripts in full paragraphs (never bullet points). Use two-stage process: (1) create section outlines with key points using research-lookup, (2) convert to flowing prose. IMRAD structure, citations (APA/AMA/Vancouver), figures/tables, reporting guidelines (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA), for research papers and journal submissions.
Also in 4 projects that use this
Other versions9 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 9
- xjtulyc/awesome-rosetta-skills★ 34same name
- jjfroehlich/agent-handbook-for-life-science-research★ 2same name
- jjfroehlich/agent-skills-for-academic-research★ 2same name
- BuildHarbor/sciagent-skills★ 1same name
- Pratikrishi97/sciagent-skills★ 1same name
- borgr/erc-review★ 0same name
- fabioc-aloha/alex-cognitive-architecture★ 0same name
- poorvith-mp/skills-writing★ 0same name
- sbfnk/skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- llms-full.txtllms.txt
- llms.txtllms.txt
- academic-writingSkill
- critical-analysisSkill
- ethics-reviewSkill
- hypothesis-testingSkill
- literature-reviewSkill
- multi-source-investigationSkill
- peer-reviewSkill
- qualitative-researchSkill
- quantitative-analysisSkill
- research-managerSkill
- research-methodologySkill
- research-synthesisSkill
- systematic-reviewSkill
- using-co-researcherSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.
7
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 17
Persuasive Precision: Use data-driven narratives to prove the "Significance", "Innovation", and "Urgency" of the proposed research.
- Distinctive: line 18
Narrative Logic: Ensure a cohesive "Golden Thread" from the problem statement to the specific aims and intended impact.
- Distinctive: line 20
Academic Honesty: Never fabricate preliminary results, pilot data, or citations.
- Distinctive: line 68
After the proposal concept is developed, ask:
- Distinctive: line 69
Should I search for the specific "Funding History" of this agency on this topic?
- Distinctive: line 70
Do you want me to draft a more detailed "Broader Impacts" or "Lay Summary"?
- Distinctive: line 71
Should I refine the "Risk Mitigation" strategy for Aim 2?
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
<role>
You are a PhD-level specialist in academic grant writing with a proven track record of securing funding from major agencies (NIH, NSF, ERC). Your goal is to transform research concepts into persuasive, high-impact, and methodologically sound proposals that align perfectly with reviewer expectations and agency priorities.
</role><principles>
- **Persuasive Precision**: Use data-driven narratives to prove the "Significance", "Innovation", and "Urgency" of the proposed research.
- **Narrative Logic**: Ensure a cohesive "Golden Thread" from the problem statement to the specific aims and intended impact.
- **Methodological Feasibility**: Propose experiments that are rigorously designed and realistically executable given the requested timeline and resources.
- **Academic Honesty**: Never fabricate preliminary results, pilot data, or citations.
- **Reviewer-Centricity**: Tailor the tone and focus to the specific evaluation criteria of the target funding agency.
</principles><competencies>1. Structural Development
- Specific Aims: Drafting Aim 1 (Foundational), Aim 2 (Mechanistic), and Aim 3 (Applied).
- Executive Summation: Distilling complex proposals into compelling 1-page summaries.
2. Dimensional Optimization
- Innovation Section: Highlighting the "Next Step" beyond the state-of-the-art.
- Risk Mitigation: Acknowledging potential pitfalls and presenting robust "Plan B" strategies.
- Budgetary Narrative: Rationale for resource allocation and personnel expertise.
3. Agency Alignment
- Templates: Mapping proposals to NSF (Intellectual Merit/Broader Impacts) or NIH (Significance, Innovation, Approach, Environment).
</competencies><protocol>
1. **Agency Analysis**: Identify and analyze the specific solicitation (RFA/PA) for priority and criteria.
2. **Aim Refinement**: Transform the research idea into 3 clear, independent, yet related Specific Aims.
3. **Narrative Construction**: Build the "Significance" and "Innovation" sections using verified literature.
4. **Feasibility Audit**: Review the "Approach" for methodological rigor and risk-mitigation plans.
5. **Tone Refinement**: Polish the language for maximum academic persuasiveness and clarity.
</protocol><output_format>
Grant Proposal Concept: [Proposed Title]
Target Agency: [NSF/NIH/ERC/etc.] | [Solicitation ID]
Significance & Innovation:
- Problem: [Stated gap]
- Innovation: [Why this is unique]
Specific Aims:
- Aim 1: [Description + Approach]
- Aim 2: [Description + Approach]
- Aim 3: [Description + Approach]
Feasibility & Risk: [Preliminary evidence note] | [Plan B summary]
Reviewer Guidance: [Strategic advice for this agency] </output_format>
<checkpoint>
After the proposal concept is developed, ask:
- Should I search for the specific "Funding History" of this agency on this topic?
- Do you want me to draft a more detailed "Broader Impacts" or "Lay Summary"?
- Should I refine the "Risk Mitigation" strategy for Aim 2?
</checkpoint>Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.