academic-grant-proposal

name

academic-grant-proposal

description

Write academic grant proposals for major funders — NSF (CAREER, standard, CRII), NIH (R01, R21, K-series, F-series), ERC (Starting, Consolidator, Advanced), EU Horizon Europe, DARPA/DoD/DOE BAAs, and UKRI/EPSRC/Royal Society. Covers section drafting (Specific Aims, Project Description, Broader Impacts, Excellence/Impact/Implementation, Heilmeier Catechism), mock-reviewer critique against funder criteria, budget and budget justification, biosketches, Data Management Plans, and responses to reviewer critique on resubmission. Discipline focus: CS / Systems / ML, with examples aligned to compute-heavy research. Use when asked to draft, review, critique, revise, or budget any academic grant proposal, white paper, pre-proposal, or LOI.

Academic Grant Proposal Writing

Core Purpose

Produce fundable grant proposals — proposals that pass each funder's specific review rubric. A grant proposal is not a research paper: it sells future work, foregrounds significance and feasibility, and is evaluated by panels who skim. Optimize for the funder's published criteria, not for general academic prose.

Guiding principle: every paragraph must answer one of three reviewer questions — "Why is this important?", "Why will it work?", "Why this team?" If a paragraph answers none, cut it.

Workflow

Stage 1: Identify Funder + Mechanism (before drafting anything)

Funder and mechanism determine structure, page limits, evaluation criteria, and tone. Read the current solicitation/call before writing. Different funders use different terms for similar concepts (NSF "Intellectual Merit" ≈ ERC "Ground-breaking nature" ≈ Horizon "Excellence").

Route to the matching reference file:

Funder	Trigger keywords	Load
NSF	NSF, CAREER, CRII, CISE, "Intellectual Merit", "Broader Impacts"	references/nsf.md
NIH	NIH, R01, R21, R03, K-award, F-award, "Specific Aims", SF424	references/nih.md
ERC	ERC, Starting Grant, StG, Consolidator, CoG, Advanced, AdG, "B1/B2", "ground-breaking"	references/erc.md
EU Horizon	Horizon Europe, EIC, MSCA, "Excellence/Impact/Implementation", work package, deliverables	references/horizon_europe.md
DARPA/DoD/DOE	DARPA, BAA, ARO, ONR, AFOSR, DOE, ASCR, Heilmeier, white paper	references/darpa_dod_doe.md
UKRI/EPSRC/Royal Society	UKRI, EPSRC, BBSRC, NERC, Royal Society, URF, "Case for Support", "Pathways to Impact"	references/ukri.md

If the user asks generally without naming a funder, ask which agency/mechanism before drafting.

Stage 2: Decompose into Sections

Most funders require the same logical components under different names. Map the user's request to one of these standard components and consult references/proposal_sections.md for the cross-funder drafting playbook:

• Aims / Objectives (NIH Specific Aims, ERC B1 synopsis, Horizon Objectives, NSF "Goals")
• Significance / Excellence — why this matters
• Innovation / Ground-breaking — why this is novel beyond incremental work
• Approach / Methodology — technical plan, work packages, milestones, risk mitigation
• Preliminary Results — feasibility evidence (critical for NIH R01, ERC, NSF resubmissions)
• Broader Impact / Impact (NSF Broader Impacts, Horizon Impact, NIH Significance, UKRI Pathways)
• Team / PI Track Record — why you/we can do this
• Timeline / Work Plan / Gantt — year-by-year plan, deliverables
• Risks and Mitigation
• Management — multi-PI / consortium proposals

Stage 3: Draft Auxiliary Documents

Most submissions require auxiliary documents alongside the science:

• Budget + Budget Justification → references/budget_justification.md
• Biosketch / CV (NSF, NIH, ERC formats differ) → references/biosketch_dmp.md
• Data Management Plan / DMP / ORRP → references/biosketch_dmp.md
• Letters of Support / Collaboration Letters
• Facilities & Resources / Current & Pending Support
• Mentoring Plan (NSF postdoc), Sponsor Plan (NIH F-awards)

Stage 4: Self-Review and Reviewer-Style Critique

Before submission, run a mock-reviewer pass against the funder's published criteria. See references/review_critique.md for the rubric-by-rubric checklist and common rejection reasons.

Stage 5: Resubmission / Response to Reviewers (if applicable)

NIH, NSF, and ERC permit resubmissions with substantive revisions. Responses must be evidence-based and concrete. See references/review_critique.md §Response-to-Reviewers.

---

Universal Drafting Principles

Distinct from paper writing. Do not copy paper prose into proposals.

1. Future-tense, action-oriented. Proposals describe work that will happen. Use "We will design…", "Aim 2 develops…". Reserve past tense for preliminary results.

2. Front-load significance. Reviewers read page one closely and skim the rest. The first paragraph of every section must state what is being proposed and why it matters.

3. Sell the gap, not the solution. Reviewers fund important problems, not clever methods. Spend ~30% of the introduction establishing the gap with quantitative evidence; only then introduce the approach.

4. Hypothesis-driven framing, not method-driven.

   • Bad: "We propose to apply transformer X to problem Y."
   • Good: "We hypothesize that the bottleneck in Y is information loss in step Z; three Aims progressively isolate Z."

5. Aims/objectives must be independent and parallel. Each Aim should yield a publishable result on its own. Avoid serial dependencies ("Aim 2 only succeeds if Aim 1 works") — reviewers see this as fragile.

6. Show feasibility with preliminary data. A novel idea without preliminary results reads as speculative. For senior mechanisms (NIH R01, ERC AdG, large NSF programs), preliminary data is effectively required. For early-career mechanisms (NIH K, ERC StG, NSF CAREER), prior closely-related publications substitute.

7. Risks acknowledged + mitigated. Naming risks builds credibility. Every risk needs a concrete mitigation or fallback aim. Do not claim "no risks" — reviewers read this as naïve.

8. Quantitative milestones. Replace "we will improve performance" with "we will reduce p99 latency below 10ms at 1M QPS." Vague milestones cannot be evaluated.

9. Match the reviewer panel. NSF/NIH panels include researchers outside your exact subfield: define jargon, motivate at the discipline level, keep one accessible figure per Aim. ERC and DARPA panels are more specialist — slightly higher technical density acceptable.

10. Reuse text within a proposal; never plagiarise across proposals. Rebuilding similar text across proposals is fine, but never copy verbatim from a previously funded proposal — funder duplicate-detection systems (NIH eRA, EU F&T) flag this.

---

CS / Systems / ML Discipline Notes

This skill assumes a CS / systems / ML proposal context, matching sibling skills academic-writing and academic-reviewer. Discipline-specific levers:

• Compute justification is mandatory. Request and justify GPUs/cluster time line-by-line — reviewers actively scrutinize compute budgets in ML proposals. Cite specific hardware (H100, MI300X) and node-hours.
• Open-source / artifact commitments strengthen Broader Impact / Impact. Cite prior released systems (GitHub URL + adoption metrics) to demonstrate track record.
• Benchmark / dataset choice matters. Name specific benchmarks (MLPerf, ImageNet-1K, LLaMA-70B inference) — vague "we will evaluate on standard benchmarks" reads as underdeveloped.
• Reproducibility commitments (artifact evaluation, Docker, deterministic builds) are increasingly graded. Mention them in Broader Impact and DMP.
• Distinguish systems contributions from ML contributions. Systems venues reward measured throughput/latency; ML venues reward generalization/sample efficiency. Frame the proposal toward the relevant program officer's portfolio.

---

What Authors Must Do

1. Read the current solicitation/call. Funder requirements change yearly.
2. Match section headers and length limits to the funder's template exactly.
3. Quantify every claim of importance, novelty, and feasibility.
4. Write Aims/Objectives that are independent, hypothesis-driven, and milestone-quantified.
5. Acknowledge risks with concrete mitigations.
6. Align budget to the work plan; justify every line item.
7. Submit via the funder's portal (Research.gov, eRA Commons, EU F&T, UKRI Funding Service) well before the deadline — portals lock at the deadline minute.

What Authors Must Not Do

1. Exceed page or character limits — most funders desk-reject without review.
2. Use "novel", "first-ever", "revolutionary" without quantitative substantiation.
3. Submit a paper rewritten as a proposal — different genre, different evaluation criteria.
4. Promise more than the budget supports.
5. Hide risks or claim "no risks identified."
6. Recycle text verbatim across proposals (duplicate-detection flags this).
7. Treat Broader Impact / Impact as boilerplate — reviewers read it.
8. Submit without institutional pre-award review — most funders require sponsored-research-office sign-off.

---

References

This skill loads funder-specific guidance on demand. Identify the funder first, then load only the relevant files.

Funder-specific guides (load the one matching the user's funder):

• references/nsf.md — NSF CAREER, standard, CRII; Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts
• references/nih.md — NIH R01, R21, R03, K-series, F-series; Specific Aims structure
• references/erc.md — ERC Starting, Consolidator, Advanced; B1 synopsis + B2 proposal
• references/horizon_europe.md — Horizon Europe collaborative projects, work packages, consortium
• references/darpa_dod_doe.md — DARPA BAAs, Heilmeier Catechism, DoD/DOE programs
• references/ukri.md — UKRI / EPSRC / Royal Society Case for Support, J-aQR

Cross-cutting guides (load when the activity matches):

• references/proposal_sections.md — Section-by-section drafting playbook (Aims, Significance, Approach, Broader Impact)
• references/budget_justification.md — Budget construction and justification narrative
• references/biosketch_dmp.md — Biosketch (NSF, NIH, ERC formats) and Data Management Plan templates
• references/review_critique.md — Mock-reviewer rubric, common rejection reasons, response-to-reviewers for resubmissions