grant-writing

## When to Trigger

Activate this skill when the user mentions:
- Grant proposal, research funding, grant application
- Specific aims, significance, innovation, approach (NIH format)
- R01, R21, K award, NSF CAREER, ERC grants
- Budget justification, personnel effort, subcontracts
- Preliminary data, feasibility, research plan
- Broader impacts, dissemination plan
- Resubmission, reviewer critiques, summary statement

## Step-by-Step Methodology

1. **Identify the funding mechanism** - Determine agency (NIH, NSF, DOD, ERC, private foundation), mechanism (R01, R21, CAREER, etc.), and specific FOA/RFA if applicable. Note page limits, formatting requirements, and review criteria.
2. **Craft Specific Aims** - Write a one-page aims document with four elements: (a) Opening paragraph establishing the problem and knowledge gap, (b) "What is known / what is missing" paragraph, (c) 2-3 specific aims with clear hypotheses and approaches, (d) Impact statement. Each aim should be independent yet synergistic.
3. **Significance section** - Articulate the burden of the problem (prevalence, cost, impact). Identify the critical barrier or knowledge gap. Explain how the proposed work will shift current understanding or practice. Cite relevant literature to establish context.
4. **Innovation section** - Highlight what is new: novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, or technologies. Distinguish from incremental advances. Position relative to the state of the art.
5. **Approach section** - For each aim: state rationale, describe methods in detail, present preliminary data, define expected outcomes, identify potential pitfalls with alternative strategies, and provide a timeline. Include rigor and reproducibility elements (biological variables, authentication of key resources).
6. **Budget preparation** - Justify personnel (% effort, roles), equipment, supplies, travel, and other costs. Align budget items with specific aims. Ensure modular budget vs. detailed budget used correctly.
7. **Review and refinement** - Check against review criteria (Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, Environment for NIH). Ensure each criterion is explicitly addressed. Review for clarity, conciseness, and logical flow.

## Key Resources

- **NIH Reporter** - Funded grants database for benchmarking
- **NSF Award Search** - Funded NSF proposals
- **Grants.gov** - Federal funding opportunities
- **Specific FOA/RFA pages** - Agency-specific requirements
- **NIAID sample applications** - Example funded proposals

## Output Format

- Specific Aims as a structured one-page document.
- Section drafts with clear headers matching agency format.
- Budget as a table with line items, costs, and justification.
- Timeline as a Gantt chart or milestone table by aim and year.
- Reviewer-response table for resubmissions (critique, response, changes made).

## Quality Checklist

- [ ] Specific aims are independent (failure of one does not sink the project)
- [ ] Knowledge gap clearly defined with supporting citations
- [ ] Preliminary data supports feasibility of each aim
- [ ] Potential pitfalls identified with concrete alternative approaches
- [ ] Budget aligned with proposed experiments
- [ ] Page limits and formatting requirements met
- [ ] Rigor and reproducibility addressed (NIH requirement)
- [ ] Broader impacts / translational potential articulated
- [ ] All required sections and attachments included