Use when writing or reviewing NIH, NSF, or foundation grant proposals. Invoke when user mentions specific aims, R01, R21, K-series, significance, innovation, approach section, grant writing, proposal review, research strategy, or needs help with fundable hypothesis, reviewer-friendly structure, or compliance with grant guidelines.
Guides NIH/NSF grant proposal writing by applying reviewer-perspective critique to ensure testable hypotheses, compelling significance, genuine innovation, and feasible approaches. Invoked when drafting specific aims, significance/innovation/approach sections, or preparing for study section review.
/plugin marketplace add lyndonkl/claude/plugin install lyndonkl-thinking-frameworks-skills@lyndonkl/claudeThis skill inherits all available tools. When active, it can use any tool Claude has access to.
resources/evaluators/rubric_grant_proposal.jsonresources/methodology.mdresources/template.mdThis 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.
Use this skill when:
Trigger phrases: "grant proposal", "specific aims", "R01", "R21", "NIH grant", "NSF proposal", "significance section", "innovation", "approach", "study section", "reviewer", "fundable"
Do NOT use for:
scientific-manuscript-review)career-document-architect)academic-letter-architect)Every grant proposal must convincingly answer these four questions:
1. What is the central hypothesis?
2. Why is the problem important NOW?
3. What makes the approach innovative?
4. Is the plan feasible and logical?
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
Grant Proposal Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Identify grant mechanism and constraints
- [ ] Step 2: Core questions audit
- [ ] Step 3: Specific Aims review (1-page)
- [ ] Step 4: Significance section review
- [ ] Step 5: Innovation section review
- [ ] Step 6: Approach section review (per aim)
- [ ] Step 7: Reviewer alignment check
- [ ] Step 8: Compliance verification
Step 1: Identify Grant Mechanism and Constraints
Determine mechanism (R01, R21, K, NSF, Foundation). Note page limits, required sections, and review criteria. R01 = 12 pages; R21 = 6 pages; K = 12 pages + career development. See resources/methodology.md for mechanism-specific guidance.
Step 2: Core Questions Audit
Read entire proposal looking ONLY for answers to the four core questions. Mark where each is addressed (or missing). Flag unclear hypotheses, weak significance, or missing innovation. See resources/methodology.md for audit checklist.
Step 3: Specific Aims Review
Evaluate the 1-page Aims against the gold standard: Opening hook → Gap → Hypothesis → Aims (testable, independent, coherent) → Impact. This is the most important page. See resources/template.md for structure.
Step 4: Significance Section Review
Check: What is the problem? Why does it matter? What will change if successful? Look for explicit gap statements and impact predictions. See resources/methodology.md for evaluation criteria.
Step 5: Innovation Section Review
Check: What is genuinely new? Be specific (not "innovative approach" but "first application of X to Y"). Innovation can be conceptual, methodological, or in expected outcomes. See resources/methodology.md for evaluation criteria.
Step 6: Approach Section Review
For EACH aim: Rationale (why this aim?) → Strategy (how?) → Expected outcomes → Pitfalls → Alternatives. Check for adequate controls, statistical power, timeline realism. See resources/template.md for per-aim structure.
Step 7: Reviewer Alignment Check
Read as a non-expert reviewer would. Can they understand significance without deep domain knowledge? Are impact statements prominent? Is the writing accessible? See resources/methodology.md for reviewer simulation.
Step 8: Compliance Verification
Check page limits, required sections, biosketch format, reference formatting. Verify all required components present. Validate using resources/evaluators/rubric_grant_proposal.json. Minimum standard: Average score ≥ 3.5.
The most important page of your grant.
Structure:
OPENING PARAGRAPH (4-6 sentences)
- Hook: Why this problem matters (significance)
- Gap: What's missing in current understanding
- Long-term goal: Your program of research
- Central hypothesis: Testable, specific
- Rationale: Why this hypothesis is reasonable (preliminary data)
AIM 1: [Verb phrase describing objective]
- Brief description (2-3 sentences)
- Expected outcome and interpretation
- Must be testable and achievable
AIM 2: [Verb phrase describing objective]
- Brief description (2-3 sentences)
- Expected outcome and interpretation
- Independent of Aim 1 (can proceed if Aim 1 fails)
AIM 3 (optional): [Verb phrase describing objective]
- Brief description (2-3 sentences)
- May integrate findings from Aims 1-2
CLOSING PARAGRAPH (2-3 sentences)
- Expected outcomes of the project
- Impact: How this advances the field
- Future directions this enables
Goal: Convince reviewers the problem matters
Key elements:
Red flags:
Goal: Show this is not incremental
Types of innovation:
Format:
Structure for each aim:
AIM X: [Title]
RATIONALE (1 paragraph)
Why is this aim necessary? How does it address the hypothesis?
PRELIMINARY DATA (if applicable)
What have you already shown that supports feasibility?
STRATEGY (2-4 paragraphs)
- Experimental design
- Methods and procedures
- Controls (positive and negative)
- Statistical analysis plan
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
What results do you expect? How will you interpret them?
POTENTIAL PITFALLS AND ALTERNATIVES
What could go wrong? What's your backup plan?
TIMELINE/MILESTONES
When will this be completed? Dependencies on other aims?
Good proposals make reviewers' jobs easy:
Proposals get criticized for:
Critical requirements:
Common pitfalls:
Key resources:
Page limits:
| Mechanism | Research Strategy | Specific Aims |
|---|---|---|
| R01 | 12 pages | 1 page |
| R21 | 6 pages | 1 page |
| R03 | 6 pages | 1 page |
| K-series | 12 pages (+career) | 1 page |
NIH scoring:
Typical writing time:
Inputs required:
Outputs produced:
Creating algorithmic art using p5.js with seeded randomness and interactive parameter exploration. Use this when users request creating art using code, generative art, algorithmic art, flow fields, or particle systems. Create original algorithmic art rather than copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.
Applies Anthropic's official brand colors and typography to any sort of artifact that may benefit from having Anthropic's look-and-feel. Use it when brand colors or style guidelines, visual formatting, or company design standards apply.
Create beautiful visual art in .png and .pdf documents using design philosophy. You should use this skill when the user asks to create a poster, piece of art, design, or other static piece. Create original visual designs, never copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.