Research Proposal Development
Purpose
Turn an important research question into a reviewer-decision-ready proposal. Preserve the investigator's scientific direction and distinguish verified preliminary evidence, proposed work, assumptions, and collaborator-dependent commitments.
Route To Reference
Read references/proposal-development.md before drafting a full narrative, responding to review criteria, planning proposal figures, integrating preliminary results, or polishing a submission.
Workflow
- Extract the solicitation's scope, eligibility, deadline, budget and duration constraints, required sections, evaluation criteria, and special requirements from primary sources.
- Frame the need: high-value application or scientific barrier, current state, precise gap, reason it endures, and the proposed solution's testable advance.
- Map every aim or thrust to a hypothesis, method, measurable success criterion, risk, mitigation, deliverable, and reviewer criterion.
- Use preliminary results as evidence of feasibility, not proof of promised outcomes. Label planned partnerships, facilities, datasets, and external commitments unless confirmed.
- Make the figure plan do work: system concept, evidence of feasibility, causal mechanism, work plan, and quantitative success metrics.
Writing Rules
Each paragraph should answer one reviewer question. Avoid generic impact claims, unexplained work packages, and a list of tasks that does not produce knowledge. Explain why the team, methodology, and timeline make the proposed advance credible.
Final Review
Check factual solicitation alignment, budget/timeline consistency, references, labels on preliminary versus proposed material, and all claimed collaborator, institutional, or facility commitments. Flag requirements that require institutional review rather than inventing compliance language.
1---2name: research-proposal-development3description: Develop research proposals with solicitation alignment, reviewer-focused logic, evidence-bounded preliminary results, milestones, risks, and compelling figures. Use for federal, foundation, equipment, partnership, or internal research proposals.4---56# Research Proposal Development78## Purpose910Turn an important research question into a reviewer-decision-ready proposal. Preserve the investigator's scientific direction and distinguish verified preliminary evidence, proposed work, assumptions, and collaborator-dependent commitments.1112## Route To Reference1314Read `references/proposal-development.md` before drafting a full narrative, responding to review criteria, planning proposal figures, integrating preliminary results, or polishing a submission.1516## Workflow17181. Extract the solicitation's scope, eligibility, deadline, budget and duration constraints, required sections, evaluation criteria, and special requirements from primary sources.192. Frame the need: high-value application or scientific barrier, current state, precise gap, reason it endures, and the proposed solution's testable advance.203. Map every aim or thrust to a hypothesis, method, measurable success criterion, risk, mitigation, deliverable, and reviewer criterion.214. Use preliminary results as evidence of feasibility, not proof of promised outcomes. Label planned partnerships, facilities, datasets, and external commitments unless confirmed.225. Make the figure plan do work: system concept, evidence of feasibility, causal mechanism, work plan, and quantitative success metrics.2324## Writing Rules2526Each paragraph should answer one reviewer question. Avoid generic impact claims, unexplained work packages, and a list of tasks that does not produce knowledge. Explain why the team, methodology, and timeline make the proposed advance credible.2728## Final Review2930Check factual solicitation alignment, budget/timeline consistency, references, labels on preliminary versus proposed material, and all claimed collaborator, institutional, or facility commitments. Flag requirements that require institutional review rather than inventing compliance language.
hanhuark