Agent Skills
GrantNIHProposal

Grant Proposal Assistant

AIPOCH-AI

Grant Proposal Assistant is designed for mainstream grant application processes such as NIH (R01/R21)/NSF.

27
1
FILES
grant-proposal-assistant/
skill.md
scripts
main.py
references
budget_templates.md
NIH_R01_template.md
NSF_template.md
review_checklist.md
specific_aims_examples.md

SKILL.md

Grant Proposal Assistant

A comprehensive tool for writing competitive grant proposals targeting NIH (R01/R21), NSF, and other major funding agencies.

Capabilities

  1. Section Templates: Standard templates for all major grant sections
  2. Specific Aims Generator: Structured approach to crafting compelling Specific Aims pages
  3. Budget Justification Helper: Equipment, personnel, and other cost justifications
  4. Review & Critique: Self-assessment checklists for proposal quality

Usage

Command Line

# Generate Specific Aims template
python3 scripts/main.py --section aims --output my_aims.md

# Generate full proposal template
python3 scripts/main.py --section full --agency NIH --type R01 --output proposal.md

# Budget justification helper
python3 scripts/main.py --section budget --category personnel --output budget.md

# Review existing proposal
python3 scripts/main.py --review --input my_proposal.md

As Library

from scripts.main import GrantProposalAssistant

assistant = GrantProposalAssistant(agency="NIH", grant_type="R01")
template = assistant.generate_section("specific_aims")
budget = assistant.generate_budget_justification(category="equipment", items=[...])

Parameters

ParameterDescriptionOptions
--sectionSection to generateaims, significance, approach, budget, full
--agencyFunding agencyNIH, NSF, DOD, VA
--typeGrant mechanismR01, R21, R03, SBIR, STTR
--categoryBudget categorypersonnel, equipment, supplies, travel, other
--inputInput file for reviewPath to existing proposal
--outputOutput file pathPath for generated content

Technical Difficulty

Medium - Requires understanding of grant structure, funding agency requirements, and scientific writing best practices.

References

  • references/NIH_R01_template.md - NIH R01 full proposal template
  • references/NSF_template.md - NSF standard grant template
  • references/budget_templates.xlsx - Budget templates by category
  • references/review_checklist.md - Proposal quality checklist
  • references/specific_aims_examples.md - Example Specific Aims pages

Best Practices

  1. Start with Specific Aims: This 1-page summary drives the entire proposal
  2. Follow Page Limits: NIH R01 Research Strategy = 12 pages, Specific Aims = 1 page
  3. Use Significance-Innovation-Approach Structure: Standard for NIH applications
  4. Justify Everything: Every budget item needs a clear justification
  5. Review with Checklist: Use the built-in review tool before submission

Agency-Specific Notes

NIH R01/R21

  • Page limits strictly enforced
  • Significance, Innovation, Approach structure required
  • Vertebrate animals and human subjects sections if applicable
  • Resubmission strategy for A1 applications

NSF

  • Project Summary (1 page) and Project Description (15 pages)
  • Broader impacts criterion weighted equally with intellectual merit
  • Data management plan required
  • Facilities and resources section

Version

1.0.0 - Initial release with NIH and NSF support

Risk Assessment

Risk IndicatorAssessmentLevel
Code ExecutionPython/R scripts executed locallyMedium
Network AccessNo external API callsLow
File System AccessRead input files, write output filesMedium
Instruction TamperingStandard prompt guidelinesLow
Data ExposureOutput files saved to workspaceLow

Security Checklist

  • No hardcoded credentials or API keys
  • No unauthorized file system access (../)
  • Output does not expose sensitive information
  • Prompt injection protections in place
  • Input file paths validated (no ../ traversal)
  • Output directory restricted to workspace
  • Script execution in sandboxed environment
  • Error messages sanitized (no stack traces exposed)
  • Dependencies audited

Prerequisites

No additional Python packages required.

Evaluation Criteria

Success Metrics

  • Successfully executes main functionality
  • Output meets quality standards
  • Handles edge cases gracefully
  • Performance is acceptable

Test Cases

  1. Basic Functionality: Standard input → Expected output
  2. Edge Case: Invalid input → Graceful error handling
  3. Performance: Large dataset → Acceptable processing time

Lifecycle Status

  • Current Stage: Draft
  • Next Review Date: 2026-03-06
  • Known Issues: None
  • Planned Improvements:
    • Performance optimization
    • Additional feature support