---
name: "math-grant-structure"
category: "math"
maturity: "stable"
version: "1"
description: "Structure mathematics grant proposals (NSF, ERC, Simons, MSCA) — aims, broader impacts, budget, timeline, reviewer expectations — with concrete templates."
license: "MIT"
capabilities: ""
outputs: ""
sideEffects: []
dependencies: []
stopCondition: "All sections drafted; reviewer-perspective critique complete; submission checklist filled."
risk: "low"
trustTier: "1"
maxIterations: "5"
promptVersion: "2.0"
artifactType: "math"
modelTier: "reasoning"
evaluators: ["behavioral", "regression"]
fixturesPath: ""
diataxis: "how-to"
tags: ["math"]
compatibility: []
approvalRequired: "false"
approvalFor: []
---

## Contract

- Input: research programme + target agency.
- Output: structured proposal draft + reviewer critique.
- Scope: produces draft text; the human submits.
- Rule: produces draft text; the human submits.
- Rule: documented standards override defaults; explicit project rules take precedence.
- Rule: if blocked by missing context or dependencies, surface the blocker before proceeding.

## Provenance

| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What is the source of truth? | The user's request, originating spec/issue, and the skill's declared outputs |
| What is in scope? | Work covered by the skill's acceptance criteria and completion rules |
| What is explicitly out of scope? | Files, behaviors, and decisions outside the skill's declared boundary |
| Who or what consumes this artifact afterward? | The next skill in the workflow or the user |
| What evidence proves it is done? | Completion criteria met, artifact saved, validation passed |
| What risk remains? | Subjective judgment calls, missing context, or external dependency failures


## Artifact

Emit `MathGrantStructureArtifact` as both:
- JSON: `.agents/skills/platform/artifacts/math-grant-structure/{identifier}.json`
- Markdown view: same filename with `.md` extension


# 
# 
# Math Grant Proposal Structuring

Turn a **research programme** into a grant proposal that matches the agency's review criteria — and stress-test it from the reviewer's chair.

## When to use

- The user is preparing an NSF / ERC / Simons / MSCA / NSERC application.
- A research group needs a multi-PI budget narrative.
- An early-career researcher is drafting a starter grant.

## Process

### 1. Read the call

Extract:

- **Award type** — individual, collaborative, postdoc, equipment.
- **Review criteria** — intellectual merit / broader impacts (NSF), excellence / impact (ERC), etc.
- **Page limits** — exact numbers per section.
- **Required attachments** — biosketch, DMP, budget justification, letters.
- **Deadlines** — internal + external.

**Completion criterion:** requirements checklist saved.

### 2. Articulate the programme

- **Central question** in one sentence.
- **Why now** — what changed (new theorem, new technique, new data).
- **Aims** — 3–5 specific, measurable aims.
- **Approach** — methods, expected obstacles, alternatives.

**Completion criterion:** programme stated concretely; aims measurable.

### 3. Map to criteria

For each aim, state:

- How it advances **intellectual merit** (or equivalent).
- How it advances **broader impacts** (or equivalent).
- What **deliverables** (preprints, talks, software, mentoring) result.

**Completion criterion:** each aim maps to a criterion explicitly.

### 4. Budget and timeline

- **Personnel** — PI, postdocs, grad students; named or TBD.
- **Travel** — conferences, collaboration visits.
- **Equipment** — compute, software licences.
- **Indirect costs** — per agency rules.
- **Timeline** — Gantt-style milestones per year.

**Completion criterion:** budget matches agency categories; timeline realistic.

### 5. Reviewer-perspective critique

Write the critique as if reviewing:

- **Strengths** — what makes the proposal stand out; which aims are most credible; which broader impacts are most concrete.
- **Weaknesses** — where the logic is thin; which budget items are under-justified; where the timeline is unrealistic.
- **Questions** — what the reviewer would ask; write answers in advance.
- **Verdict** — recommend approve / revise / decline, with explicit conditions.

**Completion criterion:** critique written with strengths, weaknesses, questions, verdict.

### 6. Submission checklist

- [ ] All required sections present and within page limits.
- [ ] Biosketch / CV updated and formatted.
- [ ] Budget justification matches budget table.
- [ ] Data-management plan saved.
- [ ] References complete (no missing citations).
- [ ] All co-PIs have confirmed contribution.
- [ ] Letters of collaboration / support saved.
- [ ] Proposal compiled to PDF with correct margins and fonts.
- [ ] Submitted by deadline; confirmation saved.

**Completion criterion:** all boxes checked; checklist saved.

### 7. Deliver

Markdown artifact with: call analysis, programme, aims mapping, budget, timeline, reviewer critique (strengths/weaknesses/questions/verdict), submission checklist.

**Completion criterion:** deliverable complete and reviewed by at least one co-author or mentor before submission.

## Completion

- the skill's completion criteria are explicitly checked
- the artifact is saved and validated
- any blockers or skipped validations are documented
- the next consumer is identified or the work is handed off
---
@include .agents/skills/platform/contract-base.xml