Protocol Design
research-grants
Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan's NSTC when you need agency-compliant narratives, budgets, and review-criteria alignment for a specific solicitation/FOA/BAA.
87100Total Score
Core Capability
84 / 100
Functional Suitability
11 / 12
Reliability
9 / 12
Performance & Context
7 / 8
Agent Usability
14 / 16
Human Usability
8 / 8
Security
10 / 12
Maintainability
9 / 12
Agent-Specific
16 / 20
Medical Task
20 / 20 Passed
93Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan's NSTC when you need agency-compliant narratives, budgets, and review-criteria alignment for a specific solicitation/FOA/BAA
4/4
89Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan's NSTC when you need agency-compliant narratives, budgets, and review-criteria alignment for a specific solicitation/FOA/BAA
4/4
87Agency-aware structure and compliance
4/4
87NSF: Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts, typical 15-page Project Description norms
4/4
87End-to-end case for Agency-aware structure and compliance
4/4
Veto GatesRequired pass for any deployment consideration
Skill Veto✓ All 4 gates passed
✓
Operational Stability
System remains stable across varied inputs and edge cases
PASS✓
Structural Consistency
Output structure conforms to expected skill contract format
PASS✓
Result Determinism
Equivalent inputs produce semantically equivalent outputs
PASS✓
System Security
No prompt injection, data leakage, or unsafe tool use detected
PASSResearch Veto✅ PASS — Applicable
| Dimension | Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific Integrity | PASS | The legacy review kept this package on the proposal-design side of research support, not the result-reporting side. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | The archived evaluation kept this workflow in study-design support rather than patient-specific decision-making or factual result generation. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | Methodological grounding was preserved through the documented inputs, transformations, and expected artifacts. |
| Code Usability | N/A | The package is evaluated primarily as a structured deliverable rather than an executable scientific code workflow. |
Core Capability84 / 100 — 8 Categories
Functional Suitability
The archived deduction in functional suitability traces back to: Improve stress-case output rigor. Stress and boundary scenarios show weaker consistency
11 / 12
92%
Reliability
The archived deduction in reliability traces back to: Improve stress-case output rigor. Stress and boundary scenarios show weaker consistency
9 / 12
75%
Performance & Context
The workflow scales reasonably, but the archived review still recorded a small performance-context deduction.
7 / 8
88%
Agent Usability
Agent usability was strong, though the package could make its decision points even easier to follow at first read.
14 / 16
88%
Human Usability
The legacy audit gave full marks to human usability for this package.
8 / 8
100%
Security
The planning workflow stayed safe overall, but the archived score suggests slightly stronger boundary signaling would help.
10 / 12
83%
Maintainability
The archived score suggests the workflow is low-risk to maintain, with only limited room for further cleanup.
9 / 12
75%
Agent-Specific
Related legacy finding for research-grants: Improve stress-case output rigor. Stress and boundary scenarios show weaker consistency
16 / 20
80%
Core Capability Total84 / 100
Medical TaskExecution Average: 88.6 / 100 — Assertions: 20/20 Passed
93
Canonical
Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan's NSTC when you need agency-compliant narratives, budgets, and review-criteria alignment for a specific solicitation/FOA/BAA
4/4 ✓
89
Variant A
Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan's NSTC when you need agency-compliant narratives, budgets, and review-criteria alignment for a specific solicitation/FOA/BAA
4/4 ✓
87
Edge
Agency-aware structure and compliance
4/4 ✓
87
Variant B
NSF: Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts, typical 15-page Project Description norms
4/4 ✓
87
Stress
End-to-end case for Agency-aware structure and compliance
4/4 ✓
93
Canonical✅ Pass
Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan's NSTC when you need agency-compliant narratives, budgets, and review-criteria alignment for a specific solicitation/FOA/BAA
Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and... stayed in planning mode and returned a bounded design deliverable without relying on a runnable script.
Basic 36/40|Specialized 57/60|Total 93/100
✅A1The research-grants output structure matches the documented deliverable
✅A2The instruction path remains actionable for the documented case
✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary
✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path
Pass rate: 4 / 4
89
Variant A✅ Pass
Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan's NSTC when you need agency-compliant narratives, budgets, and review-criteria alignment for a specific solicitation/FOA/BAA
Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and... stayed in planning mode and returned a bounded design deliverable without relying on a runnable script.
Basic 34/40|Specialized 55/60|Total 89/100
✅A1The research-grants output structure matches the documented deliverable
✅A2The instruction path remains actionable for the documented case
✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary
✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path
Pass rate: 4 / 4
87
Edge✅ Pass
Agency-aware structure and compliance
Agency-aware structure and compliance stayed in planning mode and returned a bounded design deliverable without relying on a runnable script.
Basic 33/40|Specialized 54/60|Total 87/100
✅A1The research-grants output structure matches the documented deliverable
✅A2The instruction path remains actionable for the documented case
✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary
✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path
Pass rate: 4 / 4
87
Variant B✅ Pass
NSF: Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts, typical 15-page Project Description norms
The archived run treated NSF: Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts, typical 15-page Project... as a protocol-design path rather than an executable workflow.
Basic 32/40|Specialized 55/60|Total 87/100
✅A1The research-grants output structure matches the documented deliverable
✅A2The instruction path remains actionable for the documented case
✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary
✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path
Pass rate: 4 / 4
87
Stress✅ Pass
End-to-end case for Agency-aware structure and compliance
This stress case remained a study-design support path, not a code-driven execution run.
Basic 29/40|Specialized 58/60|Total 87/100
✅A1The research-grants output structure matches the documented deliverable
✅A2The instruction path remains actionable for the documented case
✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary
✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path
Pass rate: 4 / 4
Medical Task Total88.6 / 100
Key Strengths
- Primary routing is Protocol Design with execution mode A
- Static quality score is 84/100 and dynamic average is 80.6/100
- Assertions and command execution outcomes are recorded per input for human review
- Execution verification summary: No script verification was applicable