alterlab-research-grants

name	alterlab-research-grants
description	Writes competitive research grant proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan NSTC — applies agency-specific formatting and review criteria, prepares budgets, and drafts broader-impacts, significance statements, and innovation narratives that comply with submission requirements. Use when drafting or revising a grant proposal, aligning a proposal to a funding agency's review criteria, or preparing grant budgets and compliance sections. For Turkey's TÜBİTAK 1001/1002-A national proposals use alterlab-tubitak-proposal; to write a reviewer's critique of someone else's proposal use alterlab-peer-review; for a journal manuscript use alterlab-scientific-writing. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.
allowed-tools	Read Write Edit Bash
license	MIT
compatibility	No external tools, API keys, or services required — ships no helper scripts and works from the Read/Write/Edit/Bash tools alone
metadata	{"skill-author":"AlterLab","version":"1.0.0"}

Research Grant Writing

Overview

Research grant writing is the process of developing competitive funding proposals for federal agencies and foundations. Master agency-specific requirements, review criteria, narrative structure, budget preparation, and compliance for NSF (National Science Foundation), NIH (National Institutes of Health), DOE (Department of Energy), DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), and Taiwan's NSTC (National Science and Technology Council) submissions.

Critical Principle: Grants are persuasive documents that must simultaneously demonstrate scientific rigor, innovation, feasibility, and broader impact. Each agency has distinct priorities, review criteria, formatting requirements, and strategic goals that must be addressed.

When to Use This Skill

This skill should be used when:

• Writing research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, or NSTC programs
• Preparing project descriptions, specific aims, or technical narratives
• Developing broader impacts or significance statements
• Creating research timelines and milestone plans
• Preparing budget justifications and personnel allocation plans
• Responding to program solicitations or funding announcements
• Addressing reviewer comments in resubmissions
• Planning multi-institutional collaborative proposals
• Writing preliminary data or feasibility sections
• Preparing biosketches, CVs, or facilities descriptions

Visual Communication in Proposals

Well-chosen figures strengthen a proposal: a Gantt chart clarifies the timeline, a conceptual framework orients reviewers, and a workflow diagram makes methodology legible at a glance. Figures are optional — add them only where they genuinely improve clarity, and never pad a proposal with decorative graphics.

If a diagram or figure would aid comprehension, invoke the alterlab-scientific-schematics skill (diagrams/schematics) or the alterlab-generate-image skill (images). Figures are optional — add them only where they improve clarity.

Where figures typically earn their space in a proposal:

• Research methodology and workflow diagrams
• Project timeline Gantt charts
• Conceptual framework illustrations
• System architecture diagrams (for technical proposals)
• Experimental design flowcharts
• Preliminary data visualizations

---

Agency Profiles (at a glance)

Agency	Core structure	Primary review focus
NSF	15-page project description; 1-page project summary	Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts (equal weight)
NIH	1-page Specific Aims + 12-page Research Strategy (R01)	Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, Environment
DOE	Project narrative; often cost-sharing	Technical merit, mission relevance, often national-lab collaboration
DARPA	Technical volume by phase; BAA-driven	DARPA-hard impact (Heilmeier Catechism), transition paths
NSTC (Taiwan)	CM03 form; bilingual abstract; architecture diagram	Innovation, Feasibility, PI Capability, Value

Full agency profiles, complete review criteria, and award-mechanism catalogs (NSF CAREER/RAPID/EAGER; NIH R01/R21/R35/F-series/K-series; DOE Office of Science/ARPA-E/EERE; DARPA YFA/offices) are in references/agency_profiles.md. For binding requirements and formatting, use the per-agency guides: references/nsf_guidelines.md, references/nih_guidelines.md, references/doe_guidelines.md, references/darpa_guidelines.md, references/nstc_guidelines.md.

Core Components of a Proposal

A competitive proposal assembles these ten components. Detailed purpose, length, essential elements, and writing strategy for each — plus discipline-specific method guidance — are in references/proposal_components.md.

1. Executive Summary / Abstract — standalone hook + significance + approach + impact.
2. Project Description / Research Strategy — the core technical narrative (structure varies by agency).
3. Specific Aims / Objectives — 2-4 testable, complementary goals (see references/specific_aims_guide.md).
4. Broader Impacts / Significance — societal/educational value; NSF weights this equally (see references/broader_impacts.md).
5. Innovation — conceptual, methodological, integrative, translational, or scale novelty.
6. Approach and Methods — design, power, analysis, alternatives, rigor (see references/research_methods.md).
7. Preliminary Data and Feasibility — proof-of-concept that de-risks the proposal.
8. Timeline, Milestones, Management — phased plan with go/no-go points (see references/timeline_planning.md).
9. Team Qualifications and Collaboration — expertise, roles, biosketches, letters (see references/team_building.md).
10. Budget and Justification — categories, agency rules, line-item justification (see references/budget_preparation.md).

Writing Craft, Mistakes, Resubmission, and Workflow

These cross-cutting topics are consolidated in references/writing_and_workflow.md:

• Writing principles — write for multiple audiences; the hook→problem→solution→evidence→impact→team persuasion arc; active voice and precise language; figure design; balancing innovation against risk; internal coherence (budget/timeline/team/aims must align).
• Common mistakes — conceptual, writing, technical, formatting, and strategic pitfalls to avoid.
• Resubmission strategies — NIH A1 introduction and NSF revision (see references/resubmission_strategies.md).
• 5-phase development workflow — planning (2-6 mo out) → drafting → internal review → finalization → submission (submit 24-48 h early; never wait for the deadline).

Reference Files

Load these as needed; the body above already cites each one at its point of use.

• references/agency_profiles.md — agency profiles, review criteria, award-mechanism catalogs (NSF/NIH/DOE/DARPA/NSTC)
• references/proposal_components.md — the ten core proposal components, with discipline-specific method guidance
• references/writing_and_workflow.md — writing principles, common mistakes, and the 5-phase development workflow
• Per-agency guides — references/nsf_guidelines.md, nih_guidelines.md, doe_guidelines.md, darpa_guidelines.md, nstc_guidelines.md
• Component deep-dives — references/broader_impacts.md, specific_aims_guide.md, research_methods.md, budget_preparation.md, timeline_planning.md, team_building.md, resubmission_strategies.md

Templates and Assets

• assets/nsf_project_summary_template.md: NSF project summary structure
• assets/nih_specific_aims_template.md: NIH specific aims page template
• assets/budget_justification_template.md: Budget justification structure
• Agency-specific biosketch formats: see the per-agency guides in references/ (nsf_guidelines.md, nih_guidelines.md, doe_guidelines.md, darpa_guidelines.md, nstc_guidelines.md) and references/team_building.md.

Tasks and Tools

This skill ships no helper scripts; handle these tasks directly:

• Compliance checking: Verify formatting requirements (page limits, margins, fonts, required sections) against the relevant agency guide in references/ (e.g. references/nsf_guidelines.md, references/nih_guidelines.md).
• Budget calculation: Build budgets with inflation escalation and fringe rates following references/budget_preparation.md and the assets/budget_justification_template.md structure.
• Deadline tracking: Track submission deadlines and milestones using the timeline/Gantt guidance in references/timeline_planning.md.

---

Final Note: Grant writing is both an art and a science. Success requires not only excellent research ideas but also clear communication, strategic positioning, and meticulous attention to detail. Start early, seek feedback, and remember that even the best researchers face rejection—persistence and revision are key to funding success.