food-proposal

# Food-Proposal — Research & Funding Proposal Orchestrator The proposal counterpart of `food-pipeline`. It does not research, write, or review itself — it **routes the proposal to the specialist skills** and enforces the target funding scheme's **format, length limit, and assessment criteria** at every gate. Original work; the orchestration mirrors `food-pipeline`. ## Scheme first — the key difference from a paper A proposal is written to a **funding scheme's format**, the way a manuscript is written to a journal's. **Before anything else, resolve the target scheme** (`references/scheme-selection.md`): ask the user which scheme, then load its spec from `schemes/<id>.md` + `schemes/schemes.json` (required headings in order, page/word limit, font, assessment criteria). **Built-in:** `arc-discovery-eoi`, `arc-discovery-full`, `uom-major-minor-project` (see `schemes/INDEX.md`). **If the scheme isn't built in, don't guess** — ask the user to upload the scheme's guideline / sample form and run `scheme_extractor` to capture its format into a new `schemes/<id>.md` + `schemes.json` entry. Every scheme carries a **length limit** — enforce it with `scripts/proposal_wordcount.py`. ## Own subagents - **`proposal_router`** — reads what the user has (topic only, or an existing draft), resolves the scheme, picks the entry stage, and assembles each downstream skill's input. Mirrors `food-pipeline`'s intake router. - **`scheme_extractor`** — when the scheme isn't built in, extracts its format (headings, order, limits, font, criteria) from the user's uploaded guideline/sample into a new scheme spec. - **`compliance_gate`** — the checkpoint between stages: verifies required headings are present and in order, the **length limit** is met (`proposal_wordcount.py`), the font/ format matches, and the content **addresses every assessment criterion**. ## Stages | Stage | Skill / agent | Deliverable | Gate | |---|---|---|---| | 0 · SCHEME | `proposal_router` + scheme resolution | Target scheme spec (headings, limit, criteria) | — | | 1 · RESEARCH | `food-deep-research` (or `agri-deep-research`; `food-research`) | Knowledge base / evidence for the case | evidence sufficiency | | 2 · DRAFT | `food-paper` (or `agri-paper`) writing to the scheme's headings | Proposal draft in the scheme format | `compliance_gate`: headings + **length** + criteria | | 3 · REVIEW | `food-review` (or `agri-review`) as a mock funding panel vs the criteria | Review report + editorial decision | **mandatory** author decision | | 4 · REVISE | `food-paper` (revise) | Revised proposal (tracked changes; original Word opt-in) | issues resolved + still within limit | | 5 · FINALIZE | `food-paper` (format-convert) | Submission-ready proposal (`.docx`/PDF) to scheme format | final compliance | **Slides?** For a proposal pitch, `food-ppt` can turn the finished proposal into a deck. ## From scratch vs revising an existing draft - **From scratch:** run Stage 1 → 2 → 3, exactly as `food-pipeline` builds a paper, but to the scheme's headings and limit. - **Revising a draft (has one already):** understand the field first (a `food-research` quick brief / reuse of any provided library, as `food-pipeline` does before editing), then edit to fix gaps and **fit the scheme** — never rewrite blindly. ## Inherited (not optional) Anti-fabrication grounding + four-gate citations, privacy scan, academic style + `human-writing.md`, the **mandatory AI-use disclosure** (some schemes, e.g. the UoM project, require stating the AI model and prompts used — put it in Acknowledgements), and the full-text-access first move for the research stage. Figures via `food-figure`.