| name | grant-proposal-drafter |
| description | Drafts NIH/NSF-style grant proposals with structured Specific Aims, Research Strategy, and budget justification. Follows agency-specific formatting requirements and review criteria alignment. |
| allowed-tools | Read, Write, WebSearch |
| effort | high |
Grant Proposal Drafter
When to activate
When writing a new grant proposal (R01, R21, NSF CAREER, etc.), revising a resubmission based on reviewer feedback, or preparing internal grant applications. Use for any funding application requiring structured research narrative.
When NOT to use
Skip for informal project descriptions, blog posts about research, or progress reports on existing grants (use lab-notebook-writer for those).
Instructions
- Identify the mechanism: R01, R21, R03, NSF CAREER, foundation grant — each has different page limits, sections, and review criteria.
- Specific Aims page (1 page):
- Opening paragraph: Problem significance + knowledge gap (2-3 sentences)
- Central hypothesis with preliminary support
- 2-3 specific aims (each 2-3 sentences with rationale)
- Payoff paragraph: What changes if we succeed
- Research Strategy:
- Significance: Why this matters, what gap it fills (1-2 pages)
- Innovation: What is new conceptually, methodologically (0.5-1 page)
- Approach: For each aim — rationale, design, methods, analysis, pitfalls & alternatives (2-3 pages each)
- Budget justification: Personnel effort %, equipment necessity, supplies by aim
- Review criteria alignment: Explicitly address significance, investigator, innovation, approach, environment
Output Format
GRANT PROPOSAL: [Title]
MECHANISM: [R01/R21/NSF/etc.] | AGENCY: [NIH/NSF/Foundation]
SPECIFIC AIMS:
[Problem + gap paragraph]
CENTRAL HYPOTHESIS: [...]
PRELIMINARY SUPPORT: [Key pilot data]
AIM 1: [Title] — [2-3 sentence description]
AIM 2: [Title] — [2-3 sentence description]
AIM 3: [Title] — [2-3 sentence description]
PAYOFF: [Impact if successful]
RESEARCH STRATEGY:
SIGNIFICANCE: [Why this matters]
INNOVATION: [What is new]
APPROACH:
AIM 1: [Design → Methods → Analysis → Pitfalls & Alternatives]
AIM 2: [...]
AIM 3: [...]
BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS:
Personnel: [PI X%, co-investigators, students]
Equipment: [Justification per item]
Supplies: [By aim]
TIMELINE:
Year 1: [Aim 1 + pilot for Aim 2]
Year 2: [Aim 2]
Year 3: [Aim 3 + integration]
Example
GRANT PROPOSAL: Targeting Metabolic Reprogramming in Treatment-Resistant Pancreatic Cancer
MECHANISM: R01 | AGENCY: NIH/NCI
SPECIFIC AIMS:
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a 5-year survival of 12%. Gemcitabine
resistance develops in >80% of patients. Our pilot data shows resistant cells rewire
lipid metabolism — upregulating fatty acid oxidation (FAO) 4-fold.
CENTRAL HYPOTHESIS: FAO dependency is a targetable vulnerability in gemcitabine-resistant PDAC.
PRELIMINARY SUPPORT: 4× FAO flux in resistant vs. sensitive lines (p<0.001, n=6)
AIM 1: Define the FAO dependency landscape in resistant PDAC using metabolomics and CRISPR screens
AIM 2: Evaluate CPT1a inhibitor + gemcitabine synergy in PDX models
AIM 3: Identify biomarkers for patient stratification using circulating tumor DNA
PAYOFF: A combination therapy strategy for the 80% of PDAC patients who develop resistance.
