grant-proposal-writer
Write compelling grant proposals for academic research, creative projects, and nonprofit initiatives. Covers federal (NSF, NEA, NEH), foundation, and institutional grants with attention to narrative, budget justification, and review criteria. Triggers on grant writing, funding proposals, research funding, or fellowship applications.
Best use case
grant-proposal-writer is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Write compelling grant proposals for academic research, creative projects, and nonprofit initiatives. Covers federal (NSF, NEA, NEH), foundation, and institutional grants with attention to narrative, budget justification, and review criteria. Triggers on grant writing, funding proposals, research funding, or fellowship applications.
Teams using grant-proposal-writer should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/grant-proposal-writer/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How grant-proposal-writer Compares
| Feature / Agent | grant-proposal-writer | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Write compelling grant proposals for academic research, creative projects, and nonprofit initiatives. Covers federal (NSF, NEA, NEH), foundation, and institutional grants with attention to narrative, budget justification, and review criteria. Triggers on grant writing, funding proposals, research funding, or fellowship applications.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Grant Proposal Writer
Secure funding through compelling proposals.
## Grant Landscape
### Funder Types
| Type | Examples | Characteristics |
|------|----------|-----------------|
| Federal | NSF, NIH, NEA, NEH | Large awards, rigorous process, public benefit |
| Foundation | Ford, Mellon, MacArthur | Mission-aligned, relationship-based |
| Corporate | Google, Adobe, Microsoft | Product/brand alignment, shorter timelines |
| Institutional | Internal grants, seed funds | Lower amounts, faster decisions |
| Crowdfunding | Kickstarter, Experiment | Public-facing, momentum-based |
### Fit Assessment
Before writing, assess alignment:
| Factor | Question | Weight |
|--------|----------|--------|
| Mission | Does your work serve their goals? | Critical |
| Scope | Is your budget in their range? | Critical |
| Eligibility | Do you meet requirements? | Critical |
| Track Record | Have they funded similar work? | Important |
| Timing | Does your timeline match? | Important |
| Competition | What's the funding rate? | Consider |
---
## Proposal Structure (Standard)
### 1. Project Summary/Abstract
```
One page maximum. Must stand alone.
Structure:
- Problem/opportunity (2-3 sentences)
- Proposed approach (2-3 sentences)
- Expected outcomes (2-3 sentences)
- Broader impact (1-2 sentences)
```
### 2. Statement of Need
Establish the problem:
```
What is the problem?
↓
Who is affected?
↓
What are current approaches?
↓
What gap remains?
↓
Why now?
```
**Effective patterns**:
- Statistics that humanize scale
- Specific examples that illustrate
- Expert voices that validate
- Logical argument that compels
### 3. Goals and Objectives
| Element | Definition | Example |
|---------|------------|---------|
| **Goal** | Broad intended impact | "Improve digital literacy among seniors" |
| **Objective** | Specific, measurable outcome | "Train 200 seniors in basic computer skills by Dec 2025" |
| **Activity** | What you'll do | "Conduct 20 workshops at community centers" |
**SMART Objectives**:
- **S**pecific: Clear and defined
- **M**easurable: Quantifiable
- **A**chievable: Realistic
- **R**elevant: Aligned with goal
- **T**ime-bound: Has deadline
### 4. Methods/Approach
Describe HOW you'll achieve objectives:
```
For each objective:
1. Activities planned
2. Timeline/sequence
3. Personnel responsible
4. Resources required
5. Rationale for approach
```
**Methodology credibility**:
- Cite precedent or literature
- Explain why this approach
- Address potential challenges
- Show awareness of alternatives
### 5. Evaluation Plan
| Type | Question | Methods |
|------|----------|---------|
| **Process** | Did we do what we said? | Activity logs, attendance |
| **Outcome** | Did it work? | Pre/post tests, surveys |
| **Impact** | What changed? | Long-term follow-up, indicators |
**Evaluation components**:
- What will be measured
- How data will be collected
- When measurement occurs
- Who will analyze
- How results will be used
### 6. Timeline
```
Year 1
Q1: [Activities]
Q2: [Activities]
Q3: [Activities]
Q4: [Activities]
Year 2
Q1: [Activities]
...
Milestones:
- Month 6: [Milestone]
- Month 12: [Milestone]
- Month 18: [Milestone]
```
### 7. Budget and Justification
See Budget section below.
### 8. Personnel/Qualifications
For each key person:
```
[Name], [Title]
Role: [Specific responsibilities]
Qualifications: [Why they're suited]
Time commitment: [% FTE or hours]
```
### 9. Organizational Capacity
Demonstrate ability to execute:
- Relevant past projects
- Infrastructure/facilities
- Partnerships
- Financial stability
### 10. Sustainability/Future Plans
```
How will this work continue after funding?
- Revenue streams
- Institutionalization
- Partnerships
- Scaled approach
```
---
## Budget Development
### Budget Categories
| Category | Includes |
|----------|----------|
| **Personnel** | Salaries, benefits, consultants |
| **Equipment** | >$5K items typically |
| **Supplies** | Consumables, materials |
| **Travel** | Conferences, fieldwork |
| **Contractual** | Subcontracts, services |
| **Other Direct** | Participant support, publications |
| **Indirect** | Overhead (varies by institution) |
### Budget Template
```
PERSONNEL
PI Name, 2 months summer salary $XX,XXX
Graduate Student, 12 months $XX,XXX
Fringe Benefits (XX%) $X,XXX
Subtotal: $XX,XXX
EQUIPMENT
[Item description] $X,XXX
Subtotal: $X,XXX
SUPPLIES
Research supplies $X,XXX
Computing $X,XXX
Subtotal: $X,XXX
TRAVEL
Domestic (X trips) $X,XXX
International (X trips) $X,XXX
Subtotal: $X,XXX
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Participant stipends $X,XXX
Publication costs $X,XXX
Subtotal: $X,XXX
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $XXX,XXX
INDIRECT COSTS (XX%) $XX,XXX
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $XXX,XXX
```
### Budget Justification
For each line item:
```
[Item]: $X,XXX
[Why needed]: This [item] is necessary for [specific project activity]
because [rationale]. The amount is based on [calculation/quote/rate].
```
---
## Writing Strategies
### For Reviewers
Remember:
- Reviewers are busy
- They may not be experts in YOUR area
- They're looking for reasons to fund AND reject
- Clear writing signals clear thinking
### Structure Signals
Use headers, white space, bold:
```
**Problem**: Clear statement of the issue.
**Approach**: How we'll address it.
**Outcome**: What will result.
```
### Strong vs Weak Writing
| Weak | Strong |
|------|--------|
| "We hope to..." | "We will..." |
| "This may lead to..." | "This will produce..." |
| "It is believed that..." | "Research shows that..." |
| "Various methods..." | "Three specific methods: A, B, C..." |
| "Significant impact..." | "40% reduction in..." |
### The "So What" Test
Every claim should answer:
- Why does this matter?
- To whom does this matter?
- What changes if this succeeds?
---
## Review Criteria (Typical)
### NSF Merit Review
1. **Intellectual Merit**
- Importance of proposed activity
- Qualified team
- Sound methodology
- Adequate resources
2. **Broader Impacts**
- Benefit to society
- STEM workforce development
- Broadening participation
- Public engagement
### NEH Criteria
1. **Significance**: Importance of the project
2. **Quality**: Soundness of design
3. **Impact**: Potential effects
4. **Feasibility**: Likelihood of completion
### Foundation Criteria (Varies)
Common themes:
- Mission alignment
- Potential for impact
- Organizational capacity
- Sustainability
- Innovation
---
## Specific Grant Types
### Research Grants
Key elements:
- Literature review showing gap
- Research questions/hypotheses
- Rigorous methodology
- Preliminary data if available
- Dissemination plan
### Creative/Arts Grants
Key elements:
- Artistic statement/vision
- Work samples (critical)
- Project description
- Community impact
- Artist's biography
### Fellowship Applications
Key elements:
- Personal statement
- Research/project proposal
- Letters of recommendation
- CV/resume
- Writing sample (often)
---
## Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
|---------|-----|
| Not following guidelines | Read guidelines 3+ times |
| Vague objectives | Make SMART |
| Misaligned with funder | Research thoroughly |
| Budget doesn't match narrative | Cross-check both |
| Missing required elements | Use checklist |
| Jargon overload | Define terms, simplify |
| No preliminary work | Show feasibility |
| Weak evaluation | Be specific and realistic |
| Last-minute submission | Build in buffer |
---
## Timeline for Writing
### 8-Week Timeline
| Week | Activities |
|------|------------|
| 1 | Read guidelines, assess fit, outline |
| 2 | Draft statement of need, goals |
| 3 | Draft methods, timeline |
| 4 | Draft evaluation, sustainability |
| 5 | Develop budget and justification |
| 6 | Complete first full draft |
| 7 | Internal review, revision |
| 8 | Final polish, submit early |
---
## References
- `references/budget-templates.md` - Detailed budget formats
- `references/funder-profiles.md` - Major funder information
- `references/boilerplate-library.md` - Reusable sectionsRelated Skills
taxonomy-modeling-design
Phase 2 of the pentaphase structural-overhaul protocol. Classifies entities, standardizes attributes, establishes relationships, and designs the access framework. Use when the user invokes phase 2 of an overhaul, asks to "design the taxonomy" or "model the structure", or has completed a landscape audit and is ready to redesign. Consumes phase-1-landscape-report.md; produces phase-2-taxonomy-model.md.
systemic-ingestion-normalization
Phase 4 of the pentaphase structural-overhaul protocol. Purges redundancies, enriches and aligns legacy entities to the new schema, executes phased ingestion into the new environment, and audits integrity. Use when the user invokes phase 4 of an overhaul, asks to "migrate the data" or "ingest into the new system", or has a configured environment ready to accept legacy entities. Consumes phase-3-environment-spec.md; produces phase-4-ingestion-report.md.
system-environment-configuration
Phase 3 of the pentaphase structural-overhaul protocol. Translates the taxonomy model into objective technical criteria, evaluates candidate mechanisms or frameworks, instantiates the chosen architecture, and programs validation rules. Use when the user invokes phase 3 of an overhaul, asks to "select a system" or "configure the environment", or has a taxonomy model and is ready to choose technology. Consumes phase-2-taxonomy-model.md; produces phase-3-environment-spec.md.
pentaphase-orchestrator
Threads the full five-phase structural-overhaul protocol — landscape discovery, taxonomy design, environment configuration, systemic ingestion, governance evolution — for any substrate the user names. Use when the user requests a structural overhaul, system redesign, or end-to-end restructuring of a documentation system, asset registry, code monorepo, knowledge base, or operational workflow; or when they explicitly invoke the pentaphase methodology. Coordinates handoffs between phase-skills and seats validation gates between phases.
landscape-discovery-audit
Phase 1 of the pentaphase structural-overhaul protocol. Inventories assets, maps current flow, identifies friction, and defines value metrics for any substrate. Use when the user invokes phase 1 of an overhaul, requests a baseline audit, asks to "discover the landscape" of a system, or wants to understand current state before redesigning. Produces phase-1-landscape-report.md.
governance-evolution-protocol
Phase 5 of the pentaphase structural-overhaul protocol. Codifies operational protocols, onboards the ecosystem of participants, programs behavior monitoring, and establishes an iteration cadence so the substrate evolves rather than calcifies. Use when the user invokes phase 5 of an overhaul, asks to "establish governance" or "lock in the protocols", or has completed ingestion and is ready to declare the substrate operational. Consumes phase-4-ingestion-report.md; produces phase-5-governance-charter.md, which closes the protocol.
dimension-surfacing
Surfaces the parallel domain dimensions implicit in a dense or minimal prompt. Use when a user prompt is small on the surface but plainly implies multiple independent domains needing different expertise; when explicitly invoked by the coliseum-orchestrator skill as Phase 1; or when the user asks "what dimensions does this prompt encode" or "what axes does this break into." Produces a named dimension set where each dimension is independently executable and not a paraphrase of another.
coliseum-dispatch
Dispatches a composed set of assignment envelopes to domain-expert subagents in parallel, in a single message with multiple Agent tool calls. Enforces the no-pingpong gate via the pingpong-detector agent before any dispatch fires. Use when invoked by the coliseum-orchestrator as Phase 3; when envelopes are already composed and the next step is parallel execution; or when the user asks to "fan out" or "dispatch in parallel." Produces a dispatch log capturing what was sent, when, and where returns land.
assignment-composition
Wraps each surfaced dimension as a self-contained 9-section autonomous-work-assignment envelope — scope, context, success criteria, allowed tools, return format, handoff — all the recipient subagent needs to execute without coming back. Use when invoked by coliseum-orchestrator as Phase 2; when dimensions are named and the next step is to make each independently dispatchable; or when the user asks "compose this as an assignment." The no-pingpong gate validates each envelope before dispatch.
workspace-autopsy-governance
Conducts a full automated autopsy of the current workspace directory to map files, identifies structural issues, proposes a restructuring plan (the signal), and establishes unified governance using templates. Use this skill when a user asks to map, restructure, reorganize, or apply new governance to an existing messy repository.
workshop-presentation-design
Design engaging workshops, conference talks, and educational presentations. Covers learning objectives, activity design, slide craft, and facilitation techniques. Triggers on workshop design, presentation prep, talk structure, or training session requests.
webhook-integration-patterns
Designs reliable webhook systems with proper delivery guarantees, retry logic, signature verification, and idempotent processing for event-driven integrations.