What it does. Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan NSTC. Agency-specific formatting, review criteria, budget preparation, broader impacts, significance statements, innovation narratives, and compliance with submission requirements. Part of K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills (AI Scientist skills) (K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills).

Upstream	K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills
Skill file	skills/research-grants/SKILL.md
License	MIT
Author	K-Dense Inc.
Fetched	2026-09-10

Install

• npx skills add K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills --skill research-grants, or copy the skill folder into ~/.claude/skills/research-grants/.
• Raw file: curl -sL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills/HEAD/skills/research-grants/SKILL.md

SKILL.md (verbatim)

name: research-grants
description: Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan NSTC. Agency-specific formatting, review criteria, budget preparation, broader impacts, significance statements, innovation narratives, and compliance with submission requirements.
allowed-tools: Read Write Edit Bash
license: MIT license
compatibility: Works in Agent Skills-compatible hosts. Grant-writing guidance needs no network; optional figures via the scientific-schematics skill require OPENROUTER_API_KEY and outbound API access.
metadata:
  version: "1.3"
  skill-author: K-Dense Inc.

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 Enhancement (Optional)

Strong proposals often include 1–3 figures (timelines, workflow diagrams, preliminary data). Figures support review but are not a substitute for clear aims and methods.

When figures help:

• Research methodology and workflow diagrams
• Project timeline or Gantt charts
• Conceptual framework or system architecture (technical proposals)
• Experimental design flowcharts
• Broader impacts activity diagrams
• NSTC CM03 research architecture diagrams (often expected)

How to create figures:

• Preferred: Use the scientific-schematics skill (--doc-type grant) for AI-generated diagrams from a natural-language description
• Alternative: Build figures in your usual tools (matplotlib, Illustrator, PowerPoint, etc.)

From the scientific-schematics skill directory, with OPENROUTER_API_KEY set:

python scripts/generate_schematic.py "project timeline with Year 1-3 milestones" -o figures/timeline.png --doc-type grant

Disclosure: AI schematic generation sends your prompt to OpenRouter (a third-party API). Do not include unpublished sensitive details unless that transmission is appropriate for your project.

---

Agency-Specific Overview

NSF (National Science Foundation)

Mission: Promote the progress of science and advance national health, prosperity, and welfare

Key Features:

• Follow PAPPG 24-1 (effective May 20, 2024) unless a solicitation overrides it
• Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts (equally weighted)
• 15-page project description limit (most programs; includes Results from Prior NSF Support, max 5 pages)
• Emphasis on education, diversity, and societal benefit
• Collaborative research encouraged
• Open data and open science emphasis
• Merit review process with panel + ad hoc reviewers

NIH (National Institutes of Health)

Mission: Enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability

Key Features:

• Specific Aims (1 page) + Research Strategy (12 pages for R01)
• Significance, Innovation, Approach as core review criteria
• Preliminary data typically required for R01s
• Emphasis on rigor, reproducibility, and clinical relevance
• Modular budgets ($250K increments) for most R01s
• Multiple resubmission opportunities

DOE (Department of Energy)

Mission: Ensure America's security and prosperity through energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges

Key Features:

• Focus on energy, climate, computational science, basic energy sciences
• Often requires cost sharing or industry partnerships
• Emphasis on national laboratory collaboration
• Strong computational and experimental integration
• Energy innovation and commercialization pathways
• Varies by office (ARPA-E, Office of Science, EERE, etc.)

DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency)

Mission: Make pivotal investments in breakthrough technologies for national security

Key Features:

• High-risk, high-reward transformative research
• Focus on "DARPA-hard" problems (what if true, who cares)
• Emphasis on prototypes, demonstrations, and transition paths
• Often requires multiple phases (feasibility, development, demonstration)
• Strong project management and milestone tracking
• Teaming and collaboration often required
• Varies dramatically by program manager and BAA (Broad Agency Announcement)

NSTC (National Science and Technology Council - Taiwan)

Mission: Advance scientific breakthrough, industrial application, and societal impact in Taiwan.

Key Features:

• CM03 Form: The core technical proposal format.
• Bilingual: Abstract required in both Chinese and English.
• Innovation & Feasibility: Primary review focus.
• Preliminary Data: Highly critical for credibility.
• Research Architecture Diagram: A mandatory visual element for clarity.

Core Components of Research Proposals

Section-by-section guidance for every standard proposal component — specific aims, significance, innovation, approach, preliminary data, timeline, budget and justification, biosketch, facilities, data management and sharing, and broader impacts — with structure, length targets, and worked language, is in references/core_components.md.

Review Criteria, Writing Principles, and Proposal Types

• references/review_criteria.md: how NIH, NSF, DOE, and DARPA score proposals, and what each criterion actually rewards.
• references/writing_principles.md: what separates funded proposals from competent ones — framing, specificity, reviewer psychology, and readability.
• references/proposal_types_and_resubmission.md: the common proposal types and how to handle a resubmission, including responding to a summary statement.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Conceptual Mistakes

1. Failing to Address Review Criteria: Not explicitly discussing significance, innovation, approach, etc.
2. Mismatch with Agency Mission: Proposing research that doesn't align with agency goals
3. Unclear Significance: Failing to articulate why the research matters
4. Insufficient Innovation: Incremental work presented as transformative
5. Vague Objectives: Goals that are not specific or measurable

Writing Mistakes

1. Poor Organization: Lack of clear structure and flow
2. Excessive Jargon: Inaccessible to broader review panel
3. Verbosity: Unnecessarily complex or wordy writing
4. Missing Context: Assuming reviewers know your field deeply
5. Inconsistent Terminology: Using different terms for same concept

Technical Mistakes

1. Inadequate Methods: Insufficient detail to judge feasibility
2. Overly Ambitious: Too much proposed for timeline/budget
3. No Preliminary Data: For mechanisms requiring demonstrated feasibility
4. Poor Timeline: Unrealistic or poorly justified schedule
5. Misaligned Budget: Budget doesn't support proposed activities

Formatting Mistakes

1. Exceeding Page Limits: Automatic rejection
2. Wrong Font or Margins: Non-compliant formatting
3. Missing Required Sections: Incomplete application
4. Poor Figure Quality: Illegible or unprofessional figures
5. Inconsistent Citations: Formatting errors in references

Strategic Mistakes

1. Wrong Program or Mechanism: Proposing to inappropriate opportunity
2. Weak Team: Insufficient expertise or missing key collaborators
3. No Broader Impacts: For NSF, failing to adequately address
4. Ignoring Program Priorities: Not aligning with current emphasis areas
5. Late Submission: Technical issues or rushed preparation

Workflow for Grant Development

Phase 1: Planning and Preparation (2-6 months before deadline)

Activities:

• Identify appropriate funding opportunities
• Review program announcements and requirements
• Consult with program officers (if appropriate)
• Assemble team and confirm collaborations
• Develop preliminary data (if needed)
• Outline research plan and specific aims
• Review successful proposals (if available)

Outputs:

• Selected funding opportunity
• Assembled team with defined roles
• Preliminary outline of specific aims
• Gap analysis of needed preliminary data

Phase 2: Drafting (2-3 months before deadline)

Activities:

• Write specific aims or objectives (start here!)
• Develop project description/research strategy
• Create figures and data visualizations
• Draft timeline and milestones
• Prepare preliminary budget
• Write broader impacts or significance sections
• Request letters of support/collaboration

Outputs:

• Complete first draft of narrative sections
• Preliminary budget with justification
• Timeline and management plan
• Requested letters from collaborators

Phase 3: Internal Review (1-2 months before deadline)

Activities:

• Circulate draft to co-investigators
• Seek feedback from colleagues and mentors
• Request institutional review (if required)
• Mock review session (if possible)
• Revise based on feedback
• Refine budget and budget justification

Outputs:

• Revised draft incorporating feedback
• Refined budget aligned with revised plan
• Identified weaknesses and mitigation strategies

Phase 4: Finalization (2-4 weeks before deadline)

Activities:

• Final revisions to narrative
• Prepare all required forms and documents
• Finalize budget and budget justification
• Compile biosketches, CVs, and current & pending
• Collect letters of support
• Prepare data management plan (if required)
• Write project summary/abstract
• Proofread all materials

Outputs:

• Complete, polished proposal
• All required supplementary documents
• Formatted according to agency requirements

Phase 5: Submission (1 week before deadline)

Activities:

• Institutional review and approval
• Upload to submission portal
• Verify all documents and formatting
• Submit 24-48 hours before deadline
• Confirm successful submission
• Receive confirmation and proposal number

Outputs:

• Submitted proposal
• Submission confirmation
• Archived copy of all materials

Critical Tip: Never wait until the deadline. Portals crash, files corrupt, and emergencies happen. Aim for 48 hours early.

Integration with Other Skills

This skill works effectively with:

• Scientific Schematics: Optional AI-generated grant figures (--doc-type grant)
• Scientific Writing: For clear, compelling prose
• Literature Review: For comprehensive background sections
• Peer Review: For self-assessment before submission
• Research Lookup: For finding relevant citations and prior work
• Data Visualization: For creating effective figures

Resources

This skill includes comprehensive reference files covering specific aspects of grant writing:

• references/nsf_guidelines.md: NSF-specific requirements, formatting, and strategies
• references/nih_guidelines.md: NIH mechanisms, review criteria, and submission requirements
• references/doe_guidelines.md: DOE programs, emphasis areas, and application procedures
• references/darpa_guidelines.md: DARPA BAAs, program offices, and proposal strategies
• references/broader_impacts.md: Strategies for compelling broader impacts statements
• references/specific_aims_guide.md: Writing effective specific aims pages
• references/nstc_guidelines.md: NSTC-specific guidelines and review criteria

Load these references as needed when working on specific aspects of grant writing.

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

---

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.

Citing Scientific Agent Skills

This skill is part of Scientific Agent Skills by K-Dense. If it materially contributed to a manuscript, report, presentation, or code release, add the paper to the references or software section and tell the user you did so:

Kassis, T., Agarwal, V., He, Y., Patel, D., & Brueckner, A. M. (2026). Scientific Agent Skills: A Library of Procedural Knowledge for Research Agents. arXiv:2609.00065. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.00065

Always cite the current version. The DOI and https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00065 resolve to the latest arXiv version, so never append a version suffix such as v1. When network access is available, fetch https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00065 (or http://export.arxiv.org/api/query?id_list=2609.00065) before writing the reference and take the author list, year, and version from that record. If the record lists a journal reference or publisher DOI, cite the published version instead.

Other files in this skill

• assets/budget_justification_template.md
• assets/nih_specific_aims_template.md
• assets/nsf_project_summary_template.md
• references/README.md
• references/broader_impacts.md
• references/core_components.md
• references/darpa_guidelines.md
• references/doe_guidelines.md
• references/nih_guidelines.md
• references/nsf_guidelines.md
• references/nstc_guidelines.md
• references/proposal_types_and_resubmission.md
• references/review_criteria.md
• references/specific_aims_guide.md
• references/writing_principles.md

assets/nih_specific_aims_template.md (verbatim)

NIH Specific Aims Page Template

CRITICAL: Exactly 1 page, 0.5-inch margins, 11-point font minimum

---

Opening Paragraph: The Hook (3-5 sentences)

[Establish the importance of your research area with compelling statistics or biological significance]

Template: [Disease/Problem] affects [number] people annually and [consequence - mortality, morbidity, cost]. Despite [current treatments/knowledge], [major limitation or gap]. [Why this limitation matters for patients/science]. [Opportunity or need for new approaches].

Example: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) affects 37 million Americans and costs $327 billion annually in healthcare expenditures. Despite available therapies, fewer than 50% of patients achieve glycemic control, and complications including cardiovascular disease, neuropathy, and kidney failure remain common. Existing treatments primarily target insulin resistance and β-cell function, yet fail to address the underlying molecular heterogeneity driving variable therapeutic responses. Identifying molecular subtypes of T2D and their corresponding treatment vulnerabilities represents a critical unmet need for precision medicine approaches.

---

Second Paragraph: Gap and Rationale (4-6 sentences)

[Define what's known, what's unknown, and why the gap matters]

Template: Prior studies have established [current knowledge - 1-2 sentences]. However, [what remains unknown - the gap]. [Why current approaches are insufficient]. [Critical barrier to progress]. Understanding [the gap] is essential because [impact of filling the gap].

Example: Prior studies have identified numerous genetic and environmental risk factors for T2D, and recent work has revealed metabolic heterogeneity among patients. However, molecular classification schemes have relied primarily on clinical phenotypes (age at onset, BMI, insulin levels) rather than underlying pathophysiology, limiting their therapeutic utility. Current approaches cannot predict which patients will respond to specific therapies, leading to inefficient trial-and-error treatment selection. Understanding the molecular drivers of T2D heterogeneity and their relationships to drug responses is essential for developing predictive biomarkers and targeted treatment strategies.

---

Third Paragraph: Goal, Objective, Hypothesis, Rationale (5-7 sentences)

Long-term goal: [Overarching research program direction]

Objective: The objective of this application is to [specific goal of THIS grant - what you will accomplish].

Central hypothesis: [Testable prediction that unifies your aims].

This hypothesis is based on [rationale]: our preliminary data showing [key finding 1], [key finding 2], and [key finding 3] (Figures 1-2, Table 1). [Why this evidence supports the hypothesis].

Example: Our long-term goal is to develop precision medicine approaches for type 2 diabetes based on molecular disease subtypes. The objective of this application is to define the molecular basis of T2D heterogeneity and identify subtype-specific therapeutic vulnerabilities. Our central hypothesis is that T2D comprises distinct molecular subtypes driven by different combinations of β-cell dysfunction, insulin resistance, and inflammation, and that these subtypes respond differentially to existing therapies. This hypothesis is based on our preliminary multi-omics profiling of 500 T2D patients revealing five distinct clusters with different genetic architectures, metabolic signatures, and clinical trajectories (Fig. 1). Retrospective analysis showed these subtypes had dramatically different responses to metformin and GLP-1 agonists (Fig. 2), and functional studies in islets confirmed subtype-specific mechanisms (Fig. 3). These findings suggest a molecular classification could guide treatment selection.

---

Specific Aim 1: [Action Verb - What You Will Do]

[Brief rationale: why this aim is important, background context - 1-2 sentences]

Working hypothesis: [Testable prediction for this aim]

Approach: We will (1) [first set of experiments/methods], (2) [second set], and (3) [third set]. [Key model systems, sample sizes, or technical approaches].

Expected outcomes: We expect to [specific predictions], which will [how this advances knowledge or enables subsequent aims].

Example:

Specific Aim 1: Define molecular subtypes of T2D through integrated multi-omics analysis

Current clinical classification of T2D lacks molecular granularity. Our preliminary clustering analysis identified 5 subtypes, but requires validation and mechanistic characterization.

Working hypothesis: T2D comprises at least five molecular subtypes with distinct genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic signatures.

Approach: We will (1) perform multi-omics profiling (genome, transcriptome, proteome, metabolome) on 2,000 T2D patients from three independent cohorts, (2) apply unsupervised clustering and machine learning to identify robust subtypes, and (3) validate subtypes in 1,000 independent patients. We will develop a streamlined classification algorithm using the minimal set of biomarkers sufficient for subtype assignment.

Expected outcomes: We will define 5-7 molecular T2D subtypes, characterize their multi-omics signatures, and develop a clinically deployable classifier. This foundation will enable investigation of subtype-specific mechanisms (Aim 2) and treatment responses (Aim 3).

---

Specific Aim 2: [Action Verb - What You Will Do]

[Brief rationale and background - 1-2 sentences]

Working hypothesis: [Testable prediction]

Approach: [Detailed methods - 3-5 sentences outlining key experiments, models, techniques, and sample sizes]

Expected outcomes: [Specific predictions and impact]

Example:

Specific Aim 2: Elucidate pathophysiological mechanisms underlying each molecular subtype

Molecular subtypes likely reflect distinct disease mechanisms, but causal pathways remain unknown.

Working hypothesis: Each T2D subtype is driven by a distinct combination of β-cell dysfunction, hepatic insulin resistance, adipose tissue inflammation, and incretin deficiency.

Approach: Using patient-derived iPSCs, primary adipocytes, and liver organoids from each subtype, we will (1) assess β-cell function (insulin secretion dynamics, ER stress, apoptosis), (2) measure insulin signaling in hepatocytes and adipocytes using phosphoproteomics and glucose uptake assays, (3) profile immune cell infiltration and inflammatory cytokines in adipose tissue, and (4) measure GLP-1 secretion and receptor expression. We will perform integrative analysis relating cellular phenotypes to clinical outcomes in n=100 patients per subtype.

Expected outcomes: We will define the primary pathophysiological defects in each subtype and identify targetable vulnerabilities. This mechanistic understanding will inform selection of appropriate therapies in Aim 3.

---

Specific Aim 3: [Action Verb - What You Will Do]

[Brief rationale - 1-2 sentences]

Working hypothesis: [Testable prediction]

Approach: [Methods - 3-5 sentences]

Expected outcomes: [Predictions and impact]

Example:

Specific Aim 3: Determine subtype-specific responses to existing T2D therapies

Current treatment algorithms do not account for molecular heterogeneity, leading to suboptimal outcomes.

Working hypothesis: T2D subtypes exhibit differential responses to metformin, GLP-1 agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, and insulin, based on their underlying pathophysiology.

Approach: We will (1) conduct retrospective analysis of treatment responses in 5,000 patients with known subtypes from electronic health records, (2) validate findings in a prospective observational cohort (n=500, 18-month follow-up), and (3) test predicted drug sensitivities in patient-derived cell models and humanized mice (n=15 per subtype per drug). Primary outcomes are HbA1c reduction, with secondary outcomes including weight, hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular risk markers.

Expected outcomes: We will identify optimal first-line therapies for each subtype and develop a treatment algorithm. Retrospective data suggest subtype-guided therapy could improve HbA1c control by 0.8-1.2% compared to standard care. Results will inform an investigator-initiated clinical trial (resources available through our Clinical Research Center).

---

Closing Paragraph: Impact and Significance (3-5 sentences)

[Summarize expected outcomes, how it advances the field, and positive impact]

Template: The proposed research is significant because [why it matters]. Results will [specific advances - knowledge, tools, treatments]. We expect findings will [broader impact on field or health]. This work will [transformative potential or next steps].

Example: The proposed research is significant because it will establish a molecular taxonomy of type 2 diabetes and identify subtype-specific treatment strategies, addressing a critical barrier to precision medicine in this prevalent disease. Results will provide mechanistic insights into T2D heterogeneity, immediately applicable biomarkers for patient stratification, and evidence-based treatment algorithms. We expect findings will enable personalized therapeutic approaches that substantially improve glycemic control and reduce complications for the 37 million Americans with T2D. This work will establish new paradigms for precision medicine in complex metabolic diseases and provide the foundation for a prospective subtype-guided treatment trial that could transform clinical practice.

---

Formatting Checklist

• Exactly 1 page (not 1.1, not 0.9)
• 0.5-inch margins (all sides)
• 11-point Arial/Helvetica or equivalent
• Readable line spacing
• Aim statements are bold or underlined
• Gene names italicized (TP53)
• Figures (if included) are legible
• All abbreviations defined at first use

Content Checklist

• Opens with compelling importance statement
• Includes epidemiological data or significance metrics
• Clearly defines the gap in knowledge
• States long-term goal
• States specific objective of THIS application
• Presents testable central hypothesis (or research questions)
• Mentions preliminary data supporting feasibility
• Includes 2-4 specific aims
• Each aim has: rationale, hypothesis, approach, expected outcomes
• Aims are testable and achievable
• Aims are independent but synergistic
• Expected outcomes are specific
• Closes with impact statement
• Passes the "skim test" (aim statements tell the story)

Tips for Success

1. Write 10+ drafts - This page is too important to rush
2. Get extensive feedback - From colleagues, mentors, people outside your field
3. Read it aloud - Check for flow and clarity
4. Study funded examples - Look at successful aims pages in your field
5. Test on non-experts - Can someone in a different field understand the importance?
6. Check every word - Every sentence must earn its place on this precious page

assets/nsf_project_summary_template.md (verbatim)

NSF Project Summary Template

IMPORTANT: NSF requires three labeled sections in the project summary (max 1 page):

1. Overview
2. Intellectual Merit
3. Broader Impacts

---

Overview

[Write a paragraph suitable for public dissemination that explains:

• The research question or problem
• The approach or methods
• Expected outcomes
• Significance

This should be accessible to a broad audience including non-scientists. Avoid jargon.]

Example: This project investigates how coastal wetlands respond to rising sea levels and increased storm intensity caused by climate change. Using a combination of field observations, remote sensing, and computer modeling across 20 sites along the Atlantic coast, we will determine whether wetlands can migrate inland fast enough to keep pace with sea level rise. Results will inform coastal management policies and help predict the fate of critical ecosystems that protect shorelines and support fisheries. This work will train 5 graduate students and 10 undergraduates, with priority recruitment from underrepresented groups through partnerships with minority-serving institutions.

---

Intellectual Merit

[Address the question: What is the potential for the proposed activity to advance knowledge?

Include:

• Why the research is important scientifically
• What knowledge gap it addresses
• What will be learned
• Novel aspects of the approach
• How it advances the field]

Example: This research addresses a critical gap in understanding coastal wetland resilience under accelerating climate change. Current models of wetland migration fail to account for biological constraints on vegetation establishment and feedbacks between sediment dynamics and plant growth. We will develop the first integrated model coupling hydrological, ecological, and geomorphological processes across multiple spatial scales. Our novel approach combines high-resolution LiDAR elevation data with experimental manipulations of sediment and salinity to parameterize vegetation response functions. Expected outcomes include quantitative predictions of wetland migration rates under different sea level rise scenarios, identification of landscape features that facilitate or impede migration, and new theory on ecosystem tipping points. This work will transform our ability to predict and manage coastal ecosystem responses to climate change.

---

Broader Impacts

[Address the question: What is the potential for the proposed activity to benefit society?

Must address at least one of NSF's five broader impacts areas with specific, measurable activities:

1. Advance discovery while promoting teaching, training, and learning
2. Broaden participation of underrepresented groups
3. Enhance infrastructure for research and education
4. Broadly disseminate to enhance scientific understanding
5. Benefit society

Be SPECIFIC with concrete activities, timelines, and assessment plans.]

Example: This project will generate significant broader impacts through three integrated activities:

1. Education and Training: We will train 5 PhD students and 10 undergraduates in interdisciplinary coastal science, emphasizing field methods, remote sensing, and quantitative modeling. Undergraduates will participate through summer research internships (10 weeks, $5,000 stipends) with mentorship from graduate students. We will recruit 50% of undergraduates from groups underrepresented in STEM through partnerships with 4 historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Students will present results at the Annual Biogeographical Research Conference and co-author peer-reviewed publications.

2. Stakeholder Engagement and Policy Impact: We will partner with 5 state coastal management agencies and The Nature Conservancy to translate research findings into management tools. Annual workshops will bring together 30 coastal managers, conservation practitioners, and researchers to co-develop decision-support frameworks. Results will inform state sea level rise adaptation plans, wetland restoration prioritization, and land acquisition strategies affecting 500,000 acres of coastal habitat.

3. Public Science Communication: We will create a publicly accessible web-based visualization tool showing projected wetland changes under different climate scenarios for the entire Atlantic coast. The tool will be promoted through social media, state agency websites, and science museums, with expected reach of 50,000 users. We will also develop bilingual (English/Spanish) educational materials for K-12 teachers, piloted in 10 schools serving predominantly underrepresented students.

Impact will be assessed through pre/post surveys of student participants, tracking of research participants into STEM careers, documentation of policy adoptions by management agencies, and analytics on public engagement platform usage.

---

Formatting Requirements

• Page Limit: 1 page maximum
• Margins: 1 inch all sides
• Font: 11-point or larger (Times Roman, Arial, Palatino, Computer Modern)
• Section Headers: Must use exactly these three labels:
  • Overview
  • Intellectual Merit
  • Broader Impacts
• Public Accessibility: Overview section suitable for general public

Common Mistakes to Avoid

❌ Don't omit any of the three required section headings ❌ Don't make broader impacts vague ("will train students") ❌ Don't use jargon in the Overview ❌ Don't exceed 1 page ❌ Don't forget to mention preliminary data or team qualifications ❌ Don't make broader impacts an afterthought (they're equally important)

✅ Do make all three sections substantive ✅ Do be specific about broader impacts activities ✅ Do write Overview for broad audience ✅ Do convey enthusiasm and significance ✅ Do proofread carefully (this is the first thing reviewers see)

references/README.md (verbatim)

Research Grants Skill

Overview

Comprehensive skill for writing competitive research grant proposals focused on four major U.S. funding agencies:

• NSF (National Science Foundation)
• NIH (National Institutes of Health)
• DOE (Department of Energy)
• DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency)

What This Skill Provides

Agency-Specific Guidance

Detailed reference materials for each funding agency including:

• Mission and priorities
• Review criteria and scoring
• Proposal structure and page limits
• Budget requirements
• Submission processes
• Tips for competitive applications

Core Components

• Specific Aims Pages (NIH): Template and detailed guide for the critical 1-page aims page
• Project Summaries (NSF): Template for the required Overview, Intellectual Merit, and Broader Impacts
• Broader Impacts: Comprehensive strategies for NSF's equally-weighted review criterion
• Budget Justification: Templates and examples for personnel, equipment, travel, and supplies
• Review Criteria: Understanding what reviewers look for at each agency

Templates

Ready-to-use templates for:

• NSF Project Summary
• NIH Specific Aims Page
• Budget Justifications
• (Additional templates in development)

How to Use This Skill

Quick Start

When writing a grant proposal, specify the agency and grant type:

> Help me write an NSF proposal for computational biology research
> I need to draft NIH R01 Specific Aims for my cancer research project
> What should I include in a DOE ARPA-E concept paper?
> I'm applying for a DARPA program - help me structure the proposal

Detailed Guidance

For in-depth help on specific components:

> Help me write compelling broader impacts for my NSF proposal
> Review my NIH Specific Aims page
> What should I include in my budget justification?
> How do I respond to reviewer comments in an NIH resubmission?

Agency Comparison

> What are the key differences between NSF and NIH proposals?
> Should I apply to DOE or DARPA for my energy technology project?

Key Features

NSF Proposals

• Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts (equally weighted)
• Strategies for substantive, measurable broader impacts
• Integration of research and education
• Broadening participation in STEM
• 15-page project description limits (most programs)

NIH Proposals

• Specific Aims Page: The most critical page (detailed 1-page guide included)
• Research Strategy: Significance, Innovation, Approach sections
• Preliminary Data: Essential for R01 applications
• Rigor and reproducibility requirements
• Modular vs. detailed budgets
• Resubmission strategies (A1 applications)

DOE Proposals

• Energy relevance and alignment with DOE mission
• Technology readiness levels (TRLs)
• National laboratory collaborations
• Cost sharing requirements (especially ARPA-E)
• Commercialization pathways
• User facilities access

DARPA Proposals

• DARPA-hard problems: High-risk, high-reward
• Heilmeier Catechism: The 8 critical questions
• Program Manager engagement (critical!)
• Phase-based structure with milestones
• Technology transition planning
• Demonstration and prototypes

Reference Materials

Agency Guidelines

• references/nsf_guidelines.md - Comprehensive NSF guidance
• references/nih_guidelines.md - NIH mechanisms and review criteria
• references/doe_guidelines.md - DOE offices and programs
• references/darpa_guidelines.md - DARPA structure and strategy

Specialized Guides

• references/broader_impacts.md - NSF broader impacts strategies
• references/specific_aims_guide.md - NIH Specific Aims page mastery
• references/core_components.md - Every proposal section in detail, including budget and justification
• references/review_criteria.md - Comparative review criteria by agency
• references/writing_principles.md - What separates funded proposals from competent ones
• references/proposal_types_and_resubmission.md - Proposal types and resubmission strategy
• references/timeline_planning.md - Project management (coming soon)

Templates

• assets/nsf_project_summary_template.md
• assets/nih_specific_aims_template.md
• assets/budget_justification_template.md

Success Metrics

Typical success rates by agency:

• NSF: 15-30% (varies by program)
• NIH R01: ~20% overall (~27% for Early Stage Investigators)
• DOE Office of Science: 20-40% (varies by program)
• ARPA-E: 2-5% (concept papers to awards)
• DARPA: Highly variable by program

Common Use Cases

First-Time Applicants

> I've never written a grant before. Help me understand NSF proposal structure.
> What are the most common mistakes in first NIH R01 applications?

Experienced Investigators

> Help me strengthen the innovation section for my NIH resubmission
> I need to address broader impacts more substantively for NSF
> What's the best way to show technology transition for DARPA?

Career Development

> Help me write a competitive NSF CAREER proposal
> What should I emphasize in an NIH K99/R00 application?

Multi-Agency Strategy

> Should I submit this to NSF or NIH?
> Can I submit similar proposals to DOE and DARPA?

Best Practices

Start Early

• NSF/NIH proposals: Start 3-6 months before deadline
• DOE/DARPA proposals: 4-6 months (especially if involving national labs)

Get Feedback

• Mock review sessions
• Colleagues in and outside your field
• Institutional grant support offices
• Program officers (when appropriate)

Understand Review Criteria

• NSF: Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts (equal weight)
• NIH: Significance, Investigator, Innovation, Approach, Environment (scored 1-9)
• DOE: Technical merit, qualifications, budget, relevance
• DARPA: Innovation, impact, team, feasibility, transition

Common Success Factors

✅ Clear, compelling significance and innovation ✅ Strong preliminary data (NIH, DOE) ✅ Detailed, rigorous methodology ✅ Realistic timeline and budget ✅ Specific, measurable outcomes ✅ Strong team with relevant expertise ✅ Integration of broader impacts (NSF) ✅ Technology transition plan (DOE, DARPA)

Integration with Other Skills

This skill works well with:

• Scientific Writing: For clear, compelling prose
• Literature Review: For background sections
• Research Lookup: For finding relevant citations
• Peer Review: For self-assessment before submission

Updates and Additions

This skill is continuously updated with:

• Current agency priorities
• Recent policy changes
• New funding mechanisms
• Additional templates and examples

Coming Soon

• More budget examples
• Timeline templates
• Collaboration letter templates
• Data management plan templates
• Facilities and equipment description templates

Tips for Maximum Effectiveness

For NSF Proposals

1. Start with Specific Aims/Objectives (even though not required)
2. Develop broader impacts with same rigor as research plan
3. Use figures and diagrams liberally (make it skimmable)
4. Address both review criteria explicitly
5. Get feedback from outside your immediate field

For NIH Proposals

1. Perfect your Specific Aims page first (10+ drafts)
2. Include substantial preliminary data
3. Address rigor and reproducibility explicitly
4. Identify potential problems proactively with alternatives
5. Make sure your aims are independent but synergistic

For DOE Proposals

1. Emphasize energy relevance and impact
2. Include quantitative metrics (cost, efficiency, emissions)
3. Develop pathway to deployment or commercialization
4. Consider national laboratory partnerships
5. Address technology readiness levels

For DARPA Proposals

1. Contact the Program Manager early (essential!)
2. Attend Proposers Day events
3. Focus on breakthrough innovation (10x, not 10%)
4. Answer the Heilmeier Catechism explicitly
5. Develop clear transition strategy

Resources Beyond This Skill

Official Resources

• NSF: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/
• NIH: https://grants.nih.gov/
• DOE: https://science.osti.gov/grants/
• DARPA: https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities

Institutional Resources

• Your institution's Office of Sponsored Research
• Grant writing workshops
• Internal review programs
• Successful proposal archives

Professional Development

• Grant writing courses and webinars
• Agency-specific guidance documents
• Professional society resources
• Mentoring networks

Questions or Issues?

This skill is designed to be comprehensive but may not cover every specific situation. When using this skill:

1. Be specific about your agency, program, and grant type
2. Provide context about your research area and career stage
3. Ask follow-up questions for clarification
4. Request examples for specific sections you're working on

Version History

• v1.0 (January 2025): Initial release with NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA guidance
• Comprehensive reference materials for all four agencies
• Templates for key proposal components
• Specific Aims and Broader Impacts detailed guides

---

Remember: Grant writing is both an art and a science. This skill provides the frameworks, strategies, and best practices—but your unique research vision, preliminary data, and team expertise are what will ultimately win funding. Start early, seek feedback, revise extensively, and don't be discouraged by rejection. Even the most successful scientists face many declined proposals before achieving funding success.

Good luck with your proposals! 🎯

references/core_components.md (verbatim)

Core Components of Research Proposals

Every standard proposal section in detail: purpose, expected structure, length, and worked language. Agency-specific variations are noted inline; see the per-agency guides for authoritative formatting rules.

Core Components of Research Proposals

1. Executive Summary / Project Summary / Abstract

Every proposal needs a concise overview that communicates the essential elements of the research to both technical reviewers and program officers.

Purpose: Provide a standalone summary that captures the research vision, significance, and approach

Length:

• NSF: 1 page (Project Summary with separate Overview, Intellectual Merit, Broader Impacts)
• NIH: 30 lines (Project Summary/Abstract)
• DOE: Varies (typically 1 page)
• DARPA: Varies (often 1-2 pages)

Essential Elements:

• Clear statement of the problem or research question
• Why this problem matters (significance, urgency, impact)
• Novel approach or innovation
• Expected outcomes and deliverables
• Qualifications of the team
• Broader impacts or translational pathway

Writing Strategy:

• Open with a compelling hook that establishes importance
• Use accessible language (avoid jargon in opening sentences)
• State specific, measurable objectives
• Convey enthusiasm and confidence
• Ensure every sentence adds value (no filler)
• End with transformative vision or impact statement

Common Mistakes to Avoid:

• Being too technical or detailed (save for project description)
• Failing to articulate "why now" or "why this team"
• Vague objectives or outcomes
• Neglecting broader impacts or significance
• Generic statements that could apply to any proposal

2. Project Description / Research Strategy

The core technical narrative that presents the research plan in detail.

Structure Varies by Agency:

NSF Project Description (typically 15 pages):

• Introduction and background
• Research objectives and questions
• Preliminary results (if applicable)
• Research plan and methodology
• Timeline and milestones
• Broader impacts (integrated throughout or separate section)
• Prior NSF support (if applicable)

NIH Research Strategy (12 pages for R01):

• Significance (why the problem matters)
• Innovation (what's novel and transformative)
• Approach (detailed research plan)
  • Preliminary data
  • Research design and methods
  • Expected outcomes
  • Potential problems and alternative approaches

DOE Project Narrative (varies):

• Background and significance
• Technical approach and innovation
• Qualifications and experience
• Facilities and resources
• Project management and timeline

DARPA Technical Volume (varies):

• Technical challenge and innovation
• Approach and methodology
• Schedule and milestones
• Deliverables and metrics
• Team qualifications
• Risk assessment and mitigation

For detailed agency-specific guidance, refer to:

• references/nsf_guidelines.md
• references/nih_guidelines.md
• references/doe_guidelines.md
• references/darpa_guidelines.md
• references/nstc_guidelines.md

3. Specific Aims (NIH) or Objectives (NSF/DOE/DARPA)

Clear, testable goals that structure the research plan.

NIH Specific Aims Page (1 page):

• Opening paragraph: Gap in knowledge and significance
• Long-term goal and immediate objectives
• Central hypothesis or research question
• 2-4 specific aims with sub-aims
• Expected outcomes and impact
• Payoff paragraph: Why this matters

Structure for Each Aim:

• Aim statement (1-2 sentences, starts with action verb)
• Rationale (why this aim, preliminary data support)
• Working hypothesis (testable prediction)
• Approach summary (brief methods overview)
• Expected outcomes and interpretation

Writing Strategy:

• Make aims independent but complementary
• Ensure each aim is achievable within timeline and budget
• Provide enough detail to judge feasibility
• Include contingency plans or alternative approaches
• Use parallel structure across aims
• Clearly state what will be learned from each aim

For detailed guidance, refer to references/specific_aims_guide.md.

4. Broader Impacts (NSF) / Significance (NIH)

Articulate the societal, educational, or translational value of the research.

NSF Broader Impacts (critical component, equal weight with Intellectual Merit):

NSF explicitly evaluates broader impacts. Address at least one of these areas:

1. Advancing discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning

   • Integration of research and education
   • Training of students and postdocs
   • Curriculum development
   • Educational materials and resources

2. Broadening participation of underrepresented groups

   • Recruitment and retention strategies
   • Partnerships with minority-serving institutions
   • Outreach to underrepresented communities
   • Mentoring programs

3. Enhancing infrastructure for research and education

   • Shared facilities or instrumentation
   • Cyberinfrastructure and data resources
   • Community-wide tools or databases
   • Open-source software or methods

4. Broad dissemination to enhance scientific and technological understanding

   • Public outreach and science communication
   • K-12 educational programs
   • Museum exhibits or media engagement
   • Policy briefs or stakeholder engagement

5. Benefits to society

   • Economic impact or commercialization
   • Health, environment, or national security benefits
   • Informed decision-making
   • Workforce development

Writing Strategy for NSF Broader Impacts:

• Be specific with concrete activities, not vague statements
• Provide timeline and milestones for broader impacts activities
• Explain how impacts will be measured and assessed
• Connect to institutional resources and existing programs
• Show commitment through preliminary efforts or partnerships
• Integrate with research plan (not tacked on)

NIH Significance:

• Addresses important problem or critical barrier to progress
• Improves scientific knowledge, technical capability, or clinical practice
• Potential to lead to better outcomes, interventions, or understanding
• Rigor of prior research in the field
• Alignment with NIH mission and institute priorities

For detailed guidance, refer to references/broader_impacts.md.

5. Innovation and Transformative Potential

Articulate what is novel, creative, and paradigm-shifting about the research.

Innovation Elements to Highlight:

• Conceptual Innovation: New frameworks, models, or theories
• Methodological Innovation: Novel techniques, approaches, or technologies
• Integrative Innovation: Combining disciplines or approaches in new ways
• Translational Innovation: New pathways from discovery to application
• Scale Innovation: Unprecedented scope or resolution

Writing Strategy:

• Clearly state what is innovative (don't assume it's obvious)
• Explain why current approaches are insufficient
• Describe how your innovation overcomes limitations
• Provide evidence that innovation is feasible (preliminary data, proof-of-concept)
• Distinguish incremental from transformative advances
• Balance innovation with feasibility (not too risky)

Common Mistakes:

• Claiming novelty without demonstrating knowledge of prior work
• Confusing "new to me" with "new to the field"
• Over-promising without supporting evidence
• Being too incremental (minor variation on existing work)
• Being too speculative (no path to success)

6. Research Approach and Methods

Detailed description of how the research will be conducted.

Essential Components:

• Overall research design and framework
• Detailed methods for each aim/objective
• Sample sizes, statistical power, and analysis plans
• Timeline and sequence of activities
• Data collection, management, and analysis
• Quality control and validation approaches
• Potential problems and alternative strategies
• Rigor and reproducibility measures

Writing Strategy:

• Provide enough detail for reproducibility and feasibility assessment
• Use subheadings and figures to improve organization
• Justify choice of methods and approaches
• Address potential limitations proactively
• Include preliminary data demonstrating feasibility
• Show that you've thought through the research process
• Balance detail with readability (use supplementary materials for extensive details)

For Experimental Research:

• Describe experimental design (controls, replicates, blinding)
• Specify materials, reagents, and equipment
• Detail data collection protocols
• Explain statistical analysis plans
• Address rigor and reproducibility

For Computational Research:

• Describe algorithms, models, and software
• Specify datasets and validation approaches
• Explain computational resources required
• Address code availability and documentation
• Describe benchmarking and performance metrics

For Clinical or Translational Research:

• Describe study population and recruitment
• Detail intervention or treatment protocols
• Explain outcome measures and assessments
• Address regulatory approvals (IRB, IND, IDE)
• Describe clinical trial design and monitoring

7. Preliminary Data and Feasibility

Demonstrate that the research is achievable and the team is capable.

Purpose:

• Prove that the proposed approach can work
• Show that the team has necessary expertise
• Demonstrate access to required resources
• Reduce perceived risk for reviewers
• Provide foundation for proposed work

What to Include:

• Pilot studies or proof-of-concept results
• Method development or optimization
• Access to unique resources (samples, data, collaborators)
• Relevant publications from your team
• Preliminary models or simulations
• Feasibility assessments or power calculations

NIH Requirements:

• R01 applications typically require substantial preliminary data
• R21 applications may have less stringent requirements
• New investigators may have less preliminary data
• Preliminary data should directly support proposed aims

NSF Approach:

• Preliminary data less commonly required than NIH
• May be important for high-risk or novel approaches
• Can strengthen proposal for competitive programs

Writing Strategy:

• Present most compelling data that supports your approach
• Clearly connect preliminary data to proposed aims
• Acknowledge limitations and how proposed work will address them
• Use figures and data visualizations effectively
• Avoid over-interpreting or overstating preliminary findings
• Show trajectory of your research program

8. Timeline, Milestones, and Management Plan

Demonstrate that the project is well-planned and achievable within the proposed timeframe.

Essential Elements:

• Phased timeline with clear milestones
• Logical sequence and dependencies
• Realistic timeframes for each activity
• Decision points and go/no-go criteria
• Risk mitigation strategies
• Resource allocation across time
• Coordination plan for multi-institutional teams

Presentation Formats:

• Gantt charts showing overlapping activities
• Year-by-year breakdown of activities
• Quarterly milestones and deliverables
• Table of aims/tasks with timeline and personnel

Writing Strategy:

• Be realistic about what can be accomplished
• Build in time for unexpected delays or setbacks
• Show that timeline aligns with budget and personnel
• Demonstrate understanding of regulatory timelines (IRB, IACUC)
• Include time for dissemination and broader impacts
• Address how progress will be monitored and assessed

DARPA Emphasis:

• Particularly important for DARPA proposals
• Clear technical milestones with measurable metrics
• Quarterly deliverables and reporting
• Phase-based structure with exit criteria
• Demonstration and transition planning

9. Team Qualifications and Collaboration

Demonstrate that the team has the expertise, experience, and resources to succeed.

Essential Elements:

• PI qualifications and relevant expertise
• Co-I and collaborator roles and contributions
• Track record in the research area
• Complementary expertise across team
• Institutional support and resources
• Prior collaboration history (if applicable)
• Mentoring and training plan (for students/postdocs)

Writing Strategy:

• Highlight most relevant publications and accomplishments
• Clearly define roles and responsibilities
• Show that team composition is necessary (not just convenient)
• Demonstrate successful prior collaborations
• Address how team will be managed and coordinated
• Explain institutional commitment and support

Biosketches / CVs:

• Follow agency-specific formats (NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA differ)
• Highlight most relevant publications and accomplishments
• Include synergistic activities and collaborations
• Show trajectory and productivity
• Address any career gaps or interruptions

Letters of Collaboration:

• Specific commitments and contributions
• Demonstrates genuine partnership
• Includes resource sharing or access agreements
• Signed and on letterhead

10. Budget and Budget Justification

Develop realistic budgets that align with the proposed work and agency guidelines.

Budget Categories (typical):

• Personnel: Salary and fringe for PI, co-Is, postdocs, students, staff
• Equipment: Items >$5,000 (varies by agency)
• Travel: Conferences, collaborations, fieldwork
• Materials and Supplies: Consumables, reagents, software
• Other Direct Costs: Publication costs, participant incentives, consulting
• Indirect Costs (F&A): Institutional overhead (rates vary)
• Subawards: Costs for collaborating institutions

Agency-Specific Considerations:

NSF:

• Full budget justification required
• Cost sharing generally not required (but may strengthen proposal)
• Up to 2 months summer salary for faculty
• Graduate student support encouraged

NIH:

• Modular budgets for ≤$250K direct costs per year (R01)
• Detailed budgets for >$250K or complex awards
• Salary cap: Executive Level II (updated annually; see NIH Salary Cap Summary) — e.g., $228,000 effective January 1, 2026 (NOT-OD-26-034); cap applies to direct and indirect salaries for awards issued on or after October 1, 2024 (NOT-OD-25-025)
• Limited to 1 month (8.33% FTE) for most PIs

DOE:

• Often requires cost sharing (especially ARPA-E)
• Detailed budget with quarterly breakdown
• Requires institutional commitment letters
• National laboratory collaboration budgets separate

DARPA:

• Detailed budgets by phase and task
• Requires supporting cost data for large procurements
• Often requires cost-plus or firm-fixed-price structures
• Travel budget for program meetings

Budget Justification Writing:

• Justify each line item in terms of the research plan
• Explain effort percentages for personnel
• Describe specific equipment and why necessary
• Justify travel (conferences, collaborations)
• Explain consultant roles and rates
• Show how budget aligns with timeline

Back to K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills (AI Scientist skills) or Agent skills.