research-grants

davila7/claude-code-templates · updated Apr 16, 2026

MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.

$npx skills add https://github.com/davila7/claude-code-templates --skill research-grants
0 commentsdiscussion
summary

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), and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) submissions.

skill.md

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), and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) 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, or DARPA 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 with Scientific Schematics

⚠️ MANDATORY: Every research grant proposal MUST include at least 1-2 AI-generated figures using the scientific-schematics skill.

This is not optional. Grant proposals without visual elements are incomplete and less competitive. Before finalizing any document:

  1. Generate at minimum ONE schematic or diagram (e.g., project timeline, methodology flowchart, or conceptual framework)
  2. Prefer 2-3 figures for comprehensive proposals (research workflow, Gantt chart, preliminary data visualization)

How to generate figures:

  • Use the scientific-schematics skill to generate AI-powered publication-quality diagrams
  • Simply describe your desired diagram in natural language
  • Nano Banana Pro will automatically generate, review, and refine the schematic

How to generate schematics:

python scripts/generate_schematic.py "your diagram description" -o figures/output.png

The AI will automatically:

  • Create publication-quality images with proper formatting
  • Review and refine through multiple iterations
  • Ensure accessibility (colorblind-friendly, high contrast)
  • Save outputs in the figures/ directory

When to add schematics:

  • Research methodology and workflow diagrams
  • Project timeline Gantt charts
  • Conceptual framework illustrations
  • System architecture diagrams (for technical proposals)
  • Experimental design flowcharts
  • Broader impacts activity diagrams
  • Collaboration network diagrams
  • Any complex concept that benefits from visualization

For detailed guidance on creating schematics, refer to the scientific-schematics skill documentation.


Agency-Specific Overview

NSF (National Science Foundation)

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

Key Features:

  • Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts (equally weighted)
  • 15-page project description limit (most programs)
  • 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)

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

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

For detailed methodology guidance by discipline, refer to references/research_methods.md.

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

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

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

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

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 applies (~$221,900 for 2024)
  • 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
how to use research-grants

How to use research-grants on Cursor

AI-first code editor with Composer

1

Prerequisites

Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:

  • Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
  • Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with node --version)
  • Active project directory or workspace where you want to add research-grants
2

Execute installation command

Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:

$npx skills add https://github.com/davila7/claude-code-templates --skill research-grants

The skills CLI fetches research-grants from GitHub repository davila7/claude-code-templates and configures it for Cursor.

3

Select Cursor when prompted

The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:

◆ Which agents do you want to install to?
│ ── Universal (.agents/skills) ── always included ────
│ • Amp
│ • Antigravity
│ • Cline
│ • Codex
│ ●Cursor(selected)
│ • Cursor
│ • Windsurf
4

Verify installation

Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:

.cursor/skills/research-grants

Reload or restart Cursor to activate research-grants. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /research-grants) or your agent's skill management interface.

Security & Verification Notice

We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.

Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.

List & Monetize Your Skill

Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning

GET_STARTED →

Use Cases

User Story & Requirements Generation

Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs

Example

Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios

Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage

Competitive Analysis

Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps

Example

Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities

Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days

Roadmap Prioritization

Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs

Example

Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale

Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster

Stakeholder Communication

Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations

Example

Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement

Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead

Implementation Guide

Prerequisites

  • Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
  • Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
  • Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
  • Stakeholder contact information and communication channels

Time Estimate

30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements

Installation Steps

  1. 1.Install product management skill
  2. 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
  3. 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
  4. 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
  5. 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
  6. 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
  7. 7.Share effective prompts with product team

Common Pitfalls

  • Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
  • Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
  • Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
  • Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
  • Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements

Best Practices

✓ Do

  • +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
  • +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
  • +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
  • +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
  • +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
  • +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition

✗ Don't

  • Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
  • Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
  • Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
  • Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
  • Don't ignore company-specific context and culture

💡 Pro Tips

  • Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
  • Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
  • Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
  • Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs

When to Use This

✓ Use When

Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.

✗ Avoid When

Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.

Learning Path

  1. 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
  2. 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
  3. 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
  4. 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation

Discussion

Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)
  • No comments yet — start the thread.
general reviews

Ratings

4.550 reviews
  • Amelia Okafor· Dec 24, 2024

    research-grants has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.

  • Layla Khanna· Dec 16, 2024

    research-grants fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • Chaitanya Patil· Dec 4, 2024

    research-grants fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • Piyush G· Nov 23, 2024

    Registry listing for research-grants matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.

  • Daniel Gupta· Nov 15, 2024

    Keeps context tight: research-grants is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.

  • Tariq Rahman· Nov 7, 2024

    Registry listing for research-grants matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.

  • Layla Chen· Oct 26, 2024

    research-grants reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.

  • Shikha Mishra· Oct 14, 2024

    research-grants reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.

  • Amelia Sanchez· Oct 6, 2024

    research-grants is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.

  • Daniel Thompson· Sep 25, 2024

    Useful defaults in research-grants — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.

showing 1-10 of 50

1 / 5