--- name: "grants-writer" description: "Grant proposal writing: research grants, innovation grants, government funding, and charitable foundation applications — structure, narrative, budget justification, and evaluation criteria" --- # Grants Writer Skill ## When to activate - Writing a research grant proposal (NSF, NIH, UKRI, EU Horizon, etc.) - Applying for an innovation or startup grant (SBIR, Innovate UK, regional schemes) - Writing a foundation grant application (charitable, philanthropic) - Structuring a grant budget and justification narrative - Reviewing a draft proposal against the funder's evaluation criteria - Writing a project abstract or executive summary for a grant application ## When NOT to use - Investor pitch decks — use the pitch-deck skill - Academic paper writing — use the lit-review skill - Contract bids or RFP responses — different format and procurement rules - Fundraising for a non-profit via donations — different audience and strategy ## Instructions ### Research grant structure ``` Write a research grant proposal for [funding body]. Funding body: [NSF / NIH / UKRI / EU Horizon / other] Grant scheme: [scheme name and call] Budget: $[X] over [X] years Discipline: [describe research field] Research question: [what you want to investigate] Team: [PI, Co-Is, institution] Deadline: [date] Proposal structure (adapt to funder's specific format): 1. PROJECT SUMMARY / ABSTRACT (1 page, often public): - Background: why this problem matters - Objective: what the research will do - Methods: how you will do it (brief) - Expected outcomes: what you will produce Rule: write this last, after the full proposal is complete 2. INTRODUCTION / SIGNIFICANCE (1-2 pages): - The problem: what knowledge gap exists? - Why it matters: scientific or societal importance - Why now: what makes this the right time to fund this work? - Prior work: what has been done, and what's left to do? [Cite extensively — demonstrates literature mastery] 3. OBJECTIVES AND AIMS (most important section): Format: 3 specific aims, each independent but contributing to the overall goal Aim 1: [Test hypothesis / develop method / demonstrate X] Aim 2: [...] Aim 3: [...] Rule: aims should be achievable even if one fails. Reviewers penalise "if Aim 1 fails, Aims 2 and 3 cannot proceed." 4. RESEARCH PLAN / METHODS: For each aim: - Rationale: why this approach? - Methods: exactly how - Expected results: what you anticipate finding - Potential problems and alternatives: how you'll handle failures - Timeline: milestones per quarter 5. INNOVATION: [What is genuinely new about this work?] [How does it go beyond the current state of the art?] [What new tools, methods, or knowledge will it produce?] 6. TEAM AND ENVIRONMENT: [PI qualifications — relevant publications and experience] [Collaborators and their specific roles] [Institution resources that support this project] 7. BROADER IMPACTS (NSF-specific) / PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT (UKRI): [Who benefits and how?] [Training: how does this fund student/early-career researchers?] [Outreach: how will findings reach beyond academia?] Write the proposal sections for my specific grant and research question. ``` ### Innovation / startup grant ``` Write a grant application for [innovation scheme]. Scheme: [SBIR Phase I / Innovate UK Smart Grant / EU EIC Accelerator / regional scheme] Organisation: [company name, size, stage] Technology: [describe the innovation] Problem: [market problem being solved] Grant amount: [X] Match funding required: [yes — X% / no] Innovation grant structure: 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (1 page): - The problem and market opportunity - Your solution and what makes it novel - What the grant will achieve - Team overview - Grant ask and match funding 2. PROBLEM STATEMENT: - Market pain: who has this problem and how severely? - Current solutions and their limitations - Market size: TAM, SAM (bottom-up, evidence-based) - Urgency: why solve this now? 3. SOLUTION AND INNOVATION: - What you've built or are building - The novel element (technical / business model / process) - Why this is hard to replicate (barriers to entry) - IP position: patents, trade secrets, data advantages 4. TECHNICAL WORK PLAN: Funder wants to know grant money is used for credible R&D, not just marketing. Work packages: [WP1: X / WP2: Y / WP3: Z] For each: objective, activities, deliverables, timeline, lead person Technical risks and mitigation: | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | |---|---|---|---| 5. COMMERCIALISATION AND MARKET: - Business model: how will this generate revenue? - Go-to-market: first customers, channel strategy - Traction: pilots, LOIs, letters of support - Financial projections (3 years post-grant) 6. TEAM: - Why this team for this problem? - Key hires planned with grant funding - Advisory board / strategic partners 7. BUDGET: - Personnel: [X] - Equipment / software: [X] - Subcontractors: [X] - Overheads: [X%] - Total: [X] [Every line item justified in narrative] Write the innovation grant application for my organisation and scheme. ``` ### Budget justification ``` Write a grant budget justification for [proposal]. Total budget: $[X] Budget period: [X years] Categories: [personnel / equipment / travel / indirect costs / subcontracts] Budget justification narrative (one paragraph per category): PERSONNEL: "[PI name] (20% effort, Year 1-3): [PI] will provide overall scientific direction, lead [specific activities], and ensure timely completion of project milestones. [20% of annual salary + fringe = $X]. [Postdoc name] (100% effort, Year 1-2): [Postdoc] will conduct [specific experiments/analyses] as described in Aims [X]. [Annual salary + fringe = $X]. A second postdoc will be recruited in Year 2 to lead [Aim Y] work. [$X]." EQUIPMENT: "[Equipment name] ($X): Required for [specific experimental task described in methods]. The [institution] does not have access to [equipment], and purchase is more cost-effective than rental/core facility use because [reason]." TRAVEL: "Domestic travel ($X/year): To present findings at [conference names] and attend project team meetings. International travel ($X): To [conference] in Year 2 to disseminate [specific milestone results]." INDIRECT COSTS: "Indirect costs are calculated at [X]% of modified total direct costs (MTDC) per [Institution's] federally negotiated rate agreement dated [date]." SUBCONTRACTS: "[Partner institution] will provide [specific services/expertise] not available at [home institution]. Subcontract budget: $X for [X person-months of named PI at partner]." Write the budget justification for my specific grant categories and amounts. ``` ### Reviewer criteria alignment ``` Align my grant proposal to reviewer criteria for [funding scheme]. Funding scheme: [name] Evaluation criteria: [paste from funder's guidance or describe] My proposal draft: [paste or describe key elements] Alignment check: For each criterion, confirm: Criterion: [e.g. "Scientific merit and novelty"] Weight: [X% of overall score] What reviewers look for: [describe] My proposal's response: [section + specific language] Gap: [what's missing or weak] Improvement: [specific change to make] Common criteria and how to address them: SIGNIFICANCE / IMPACT: - Show the problem is important with data (not opinion) - Quantify: "X million people affected" / "$Y billion market" / "[Z]% of patients lack effective treatment" - Explain why solving this matters beyond the research community INNOVATION: - Reviewers want to see what's genuinely new, not incremental - Use: "Unlike existing approaches that [limitation], our method [innovation] because [reason]" - Avoid: "innovative," "novel," "groundbreaking" without specifics APPROACH (research grant): - Every method needs a rationale ("we chose X because Y") - Every aim needs an alternative strategy ("if approach A fails, we will try B") - Preliminary data is critical — shows feasibility, not just promise TEAM: - Match each team member's expertise to a specific aim - Highlight track record: publications, previous grants, relevant experience - For early-career PIs: explain how senior collaborators mitigate risk Produce: criterion-by-criterion gap analysis + priority improvements. ``` ## Example **User:** I'm applying for an NSF SBIR Phase I grant for an AI-powered drug interaction checker. $275K, 6 months. Help me write the Broader Impacts section. **Claude's Broader Impacts draft:** --- **Broader Impacts** The proposed research addresses a significant and growing public health challenge. Adverse drug events (ADEs) caused by drug interactions affect an estimated 1.3 million Americans annually and account for over $5 billion in avoidable healthcare costs (AHRQ, 2023). Despite this burden, pharmacists and prescribers currently lack real-time, context-aware screening tools capable of evaluating complex polypharmacy scenarios — a gap that our technology is designed to address. **Healthcare access and equity.** Our AI-powered drug interaction checker is designed for deployment in under-resourced clinical settings, including Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and rural pharmacies where specialist consultation is unavailable. By providing guidance previously accessible only in well-resourced academic medical centres, this technology has the potential to reduce health disparities in medication safety across socioeconomic and geographic boundaries. **Workforce development.** Phase I funding will support one full-time research engineer and one part-time clinical pharmacist collaborator. Both positions will gain cross-disciplinary experience at the intersection of machine learning and clinical pharmacology — skills in high demand as health systems increasingly adopt AI-assisted clinical tools. **Commercialisation and knowledge transfer.** A successful Phase I will produce a validated prototype and a published accuracy benchmark dataset, made available as open data to the broader research community. This dataset, covering [X] drug pairs across [Y] clinical scenarios, will support future research in pharmacovigilance, drug repurposing, and clinical natural language processing. **Scientific infrastructure.** The benchmark and evaluation methodology developed in this project will establish a replicable framework for assessing AI performance in clinical pharmacology — an area currently lacking standardised evaluation protocols. This contribution extends beyond our specific application to benefit the broader field of clinical AI validation. *Approximately 275 words — adjust to fit NSF's page limits.* --- > **Work with us:** Claudient is backed by [Uitbreiden](https://uitbreiden.com/) — we build AI products and B2B solutions with developer communities. > [uitbreiden.com](https://uitbreiden.com/) · [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/uitbreiden/) · [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/@UITBREIDEN)