grant-proposal-assistant

# Grant Proposal Assistant

## Table of Contents
- [Purpose](#purpose)
- [When to Use](#when-to-use)
- [Core Questions](#core-questions)
- [Workflow](#workflow)
- [Section Frameworks](#section-frameworks)
- [Reviewer Mindset](#reviewer-mindset)
- [Guardrails](#guardrails)
- [Quick Reference](#quick-reference)

## Purpose

This skill guides the creation and review of competitive grant proposals (NIH R01/R21/K, NSF, foundations) by ensuring clear hypotheses, compelling significance, genuine innovation, and feasible approaches. It applies reviewer-perspective thinking to structure proposals that address common critique points before submission.

## When to Use

Use this skill when:

- **Writing new proposals**: NIH R01, R21, R03, K-series; NSF grants; Foundation applications
- **Specific Aims development**: Crafting the critical 1-page aims document
- **Section drafting**: Significance, Innovation, Approach sections
- **Proposal review**: Pre-submission critique, mock study section preparation
- **Resubmission**: Addressing reviewer critiques, strengthening weak areas
- **Budget justification**: Aligning resources with proposed work

Trigger phrases: "grant proposal", "specific aims", "R01", "R21", "NIH grant", "NSF proposal", "significance section", "innovation", "approach", "study section", "reviewer", "fundable"

**Do NOT use for:**
- Manuscripts (use `scientific-manuscript-review`)
- Fellowship personal statements (use `career-document-architect`)
- Letters of recommendation (use `academic-letter-architect`)

## Core Questions

Every grant proposal must convincingly answer these four questions:

**1. What is the central hypothesis?**
- Testable, specific, falsifiable
- Not just "we will study X" but "we hypothesize that X causes Y through mechanism Z"

**2. Why is the problem important NOW?**
- What gap exists in current knowledge?
- Why is this gap significant for the field/patients/society?
- Why is this the right time (new tools, preliminary data, shifting parad