dr-cookgrant-writer

name

dr-cook:grant-writer

description

Draft competitive grant proposals and research funding applications. Use when writing or drafting NSFC grant sections, research proposals, project proposals, or reviewing existing grant drafts. Triggers on: grant proposal, grant application, grant writing, NSFC, National Natural Science Foundation, research proposal, project proposal, 基金申请, 国家自然科学基金, 基金标书, 科研项目申请, 立项依据, 研究方案. Does NOT trigger on manuscript writing (use paper-writer) or journal submission cover letters (use cover-letter-writer).

grant-writer

1. Overview

grant-writer drafts competitive NSFC grant proposals and general research proposals. Three modes: section mode drafts one section (rationale, innovation, methods, or budget); full mode drafts all sections sequentially; review mode evaluates a draft against NSFC criteria. When upstream modules (literature-reviewer, research-gap-finder) have run, grant-writer inherits their key_findings and summary automatically — no re-collection needed.

2. Parameters

Required

Parameter	Values	Description
grant_type	nsfc_general | nsfc_young | nsfc_key | general_proposal	Grant program type. Determines format rules, character limits, and eligibility constraints.
section	rationale | innovation | methods | budget | full | review	Which section to draft, or full to generate all sections sequentially, or review to evaluate an existing draft.

Optional

Parameter	Values	Description
domain	tcm | bioinformatics | clinical | pharmacology	Research domain. If not provided by the user, load from context_output.parameters.domain if available.
research_area	string	Brief description of the research topic (1–2 sentences). If upstream summary is available, that is used as the basis — confirmed with user before drafting.
target_amount	string	Requested funding amount (e.g., "580,000 RMB" for NSFC general). Used to calibrate budget section proportions.
duration	string	Project duration (e.g., "4 years"). Affects budget annualization and methods timeline.
language	en | zh (default: zh)	Output language. Grant proposals submitted to NSFC are typically in Chinese.
prior_work	string	Brief description of the applicant's preliminary data. Used to strengthen the rationale and methods feasibility.

Parameter collection rule

If required parameters are missing and cannot be inherited from upstream context, ask one at a time: grant_type first, then section. Do not ask for optional parameters unless the user has mentioned them or they are needed for the current section.

3. Workflow

Step 1 — Check upstream context. Inspect context_output before asking anything. Extract as already-provided: domain, key_findings, summary, parameters.target_journal, language, all parameters.*. If upstream status is failed, halt and inform the user.

Step 2 — Collect missing required parameters. Identify which required parameters (grant_type, section) are absent. Ask for each one at a time: grant_type first, then section. Wait for the user's answer before asking for the next.

Step 3 — Collect optional context. Ask for research_area and prior_work only if not inferable from upstream context. If upstream summary from literature-reviewer or research-gap-finder is available, present it to the user as the proposed research_area basis and ask for confirmation before proceeding. Do not ask for domain if it is already present in context_output.parameters.domain.

Step 4 — Load reference files. Load the reference files appropriate for the requested section:

• All sections → load references/nsfc-format.md for format constraints and character limits.
• section: rationale or section: innovation → also load references/significance-innovation.md.
• section: budget → also load references/budget-guidelines.md.
• section: full → load all three reference files.
• section: review → load references/nsfc-format.md and references/significance-innovation.md for review criteria.

Step 5 — Draft the requested section. Compose the grant text using structural frameworks from loaded references, content from upstream key_findings and summary, and the user-provided research_area and prior_work.

• Rationale (立项依据): Background → current research status → gaps → how this project addresses gaps → expected significance.
• Innovation (创新性): 3–5 numbered points. Each: [研究角度/技术方法/理论框架] + [what is new] + [comparison to prior approaches]. Apply taxonomy from references/significance-innovation.md.
• Methods (研究方案): Hypothesis → specific aims → design per aim → expected results → contingency plans.
• Budget: 劳务费 → 设备费 → 耗材费 → 国际合作与交流费 → 出版/文献/信息费 → 间接费用. Apply constraints from references/budget-guidelines.md. Present as a table.
• Full: Execute rationale → innovation → methods → budget sequentially, each within character limits. Output all four sections in one continuous response, separated by --- horizontal rules and bold section headers (立项依据, 创新性, 研究方案, 经费预算). Issue the iteration prompt (Step 7) once at the end.
• Review: Evaluate draft against four NSFC criteria (科学意义 20%, 创新性 30%, 研究方案可行性 30%, 申请人研究基础 20%). Rate each ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌ with specific revision suggestions. Check for: (a) missing/thin Paragraph 3 (gap statement), (b) reference count <5, (c) missing Paragraph 5 impact statement, (d) innovation points with no comparison to existing approaches, (e) missing contingency plans in 研究方案.

Step 6 — Apply character limits and language. For Chinese grants (language: zh), output in Chinese using correct NSFC terminology. Verify the drafted text against character limits from references/nsfc-format.md:

• nsfc_general: 立项依据 ≤3000 characters, 研究方案 ≤8000 characters.
• nsfc_young: 立项依据 ≤2000 characters, 研究方案 ≤6000 characters.
• nsfc_key: 立项依据 ≤5000 characters, 研究方案 ≤12000 characters. Show character count at the end of each section draft.

Step 7 — Present draft and offer iteration. After presenting the draft, ask: "Would you like me to expand, compress to the word limit, translate to English for collaborators, or move to the next section?"

4. Output Format

Header line on every output:

[Grant: <grant_type_label> | Section: <section_label> | Language: <ZH|EN>]

For Chinese output (language: zh):

• Section heading in Chinese (e.g., 二、立项依据, 三、创新性)
• Paragraph text in Chinese following the structural framework

For innovation section — numbered list with bold aspect labels:

**创新点1：[研究视角的创新]**
本研究首次…现有研究多采用…本研究通过…

**创新点2：[方法学创新]**
…

For budget section — table format:

| 经费类别 | 金额（元） | 数量依据 |
|---------|----------|--------|
| 劳务费   | …        | …      |

Character count shown at section end:

[字符数: 1847/3000]

For section: review — four-criterion assessment block, each with ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌ rating, followed by a ranked improvement list.

5. context_output

Reads from upstream

Field	Source	Usage
parameters.domain	any upstream module	Domain-specific terminology and framing
parameters.target_journal	any upstream module	Maps to grant funding body context
key_findings	literature-reviewer, research-gap-finder	Content basis for rationale section
summary	literature-reviewer, research-gap-finder	Proposed research_area — confirmed with user before use
raw_text	any upstream module	Additional content context if provided

Writes to output

{
  "module": "grant-writer",
  "summary": "NSFC general grant innovation section drafted, 3 innovation points",
  "raw_text": "<drafted grant section(s)>",
  "parameters": {
    "grant_type": "<collected>",
    "section": "<collected>",
    "language": "<collected>"
  },
  "status": "success | partial | failed",
  "error_message": null
}

Downstream readers of raw_text: chinese-polisher, english-polisher (if translation requested).

6. References

See references/ for:

• nsfc-format.md — Grant type comparison, character limits, review criteria weights, common rejection reasons, and format requirements
• significance-innovation.md — 立项依据 structural framework, innovation point structure and taxonomy, strength/weakness indicator phrases
• budget-guidelines.md — NSFC budget category breakdown, sample budget table, justification rules, and common budget mistakes