# Rgc Write

> Comprehensive writing guide for Hong Kong RGC GRF and CRF proposals. Covers all sections including objectives, literature review, methodology, significance, budget justification, and PI track record.

- Skill: `mengzili/rgc-write` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add mengzili/rgc-write`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/mengzili/rgc-write/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Research & Search
- Author: mengzili (https://skillmd.com/u/mengzili)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/mengzili/rgc-write

---


# RGC GRF/CRF Proposal Writing Guide

## Critical Reminders

- **Do NOT modify official section headings** in the RGC application form
- **Respect page limits strictly**: 15 pages for GRF research plan (including references), 20 pages for CRF
- **All content must be in English** (RGC standard; some schemes may accept Chinese)
- **Proofread carefully** — language errors suggest carelessness to reviewers

---

## GRF Proposal Structure (Standard)

### Research Plan (max 15 pages including references)

1. **Objectives** — Clear, concise statement of research goals
2. **Background / Literature Review** — Context, gaps, and motivation
3. **Research Methodology and Plan** — Detailed approach, techniques, analysis
4. **Significance and Value** — Contribution to the field and broader impact
5. **Timetable / Milestones** — Realistic project timeline
6. **References** — Within the page limit

### Other Required Components (separate from 15-page limit)
- PI's CV and Publication List
- Budget and Justification
- Ethical Review (if applicable)
- Declaration of Overlap with Other Funding

---

## CRF Proposal Structure

CRF proposals follow a similar framework but must additionally address:
- **Rationale for Collaboration** — Why multi-institutional collaboration is essential
- **Role of Each PI / Institution** — Clear delineation of responsibilities
- **Shared Resources / Infrastructure** — How collaboration creates synergy
- **Management Plan** — Coordination mechanisms, meetings, milestones

---

## Core Principles

### Know Your Audience
- External reviewers are international experts (often outside Hong Kong)
- Panel members cover broad disciplinary areas
- Each reviewer handles many proposals — clarity and conciseness win
- Assume reviewers are knowledgeable in the general area but not your specific niche

### The "What–Why–How" Framework
Every strong proposal answers three questions:
1. **What** — What is the research problem and what will you achieve?
2. **Why** — Why is this important and why now?
3. **How** — How will you accomplish this? (methodology, feasibility)

### Write for Skimming
- Use clear headings and subheadings
- Bold key terms and findings
- Start each paragraph with the main point
- Use bullet points for lists of items
- Include figures that summarize complex ideas

---

## Section-by-Section Guidance

### 1. Objectives (半页 / half a page)

**Purpose**: State what you will achieve — clear, specific, measurable.

**Tips**:
- 2–4 specific objectives, each in one sentence
- Use action verbs: "develop," "investigate," "establish," "demonstrate"
- Objectives should be achievable within the funding period
- Avoid vague language ("explore," "study," "look into")

**Example structure**:
> This project aims to [overarching goal]. Specifically, we will:
> 1. Develop ...
> 2. Investigate ...
> 3. Demonstrate ...

### 2. Background / Literature Review (3–5 pages)

**Purpose**: Establish context, identify the gap, and motivate your research.

**Structure**:
1. **Broad context** — Why this field matters (1–2 paragraphs)
2. **State of the art** — What has been done, key achievements (2–3 pages)
3. **Gap / Problem** — What remains unsolved or poorly understood
4. **Your angle** — How your proposed work addresses the gap

**Tips**:
- Cite 30–50 references, emphasizing recent work (last 5 years)
- Be fair and balanced — acknowledge others' contributions
- Don't just list papers; synthesize and critique
- End with a clear statement of the knowledge gap your project fills
- A summary figure here (conceptual diagram) is highly effective

### 3. Research Methodology and Plan (5–7 pages)

**Purpose**: Convince reviewers your approach is sound and feasible.

**Structure by objective**:
For each objective, describe:
- **Approach** — What method/technique will you use?
- **Rationale** — Why this approach? What are the alternatives?
- **Expected outcomes** — What results do you anticipate?
- **Potential challenges** — What could go wrong? How will you mitigate?

**Tips**:
- Be specific about methods, not generic
- Include preliminary results if available (strengthens feasibility)
- Describe data analysis plans
- For experimental work: sample sizes, controls, statistical methods
- For computational work: algorithms, software, validation strategies
- Include a methodology flowchart (see rgc-figure skill)

### 4. Significance and Value (1–2 pages)

**Purpose**: Articulate the impact and contribution of your research.

**Cover**:
- **Scientific significance** — Advances in knowledge, new theories/methods
- **Practical/societal impact** — Applications, policy implications, industry relevance
- **Innovation** — What is new or different about your approach?
- **Relevance to Hong Kong** — Local context or benefit (helpful but not required for GRF)

### 5. Timetable / Milestones (0.5–1 page)

**Tips**:
- Use a Gantt chart or table format
- Break into 6-month or quarterly intervals
- Include milestones and deliverables
- Show that the timeline is realistic
- Account for potential delays in critical-path items

### 6. References

- Included within the page limit — be selective
- Use a consistent citation format throughout
- Prioritize recent, high-impact, and directly relevant works

---

## PI's CV and Track Record

This section is **critical** — reviewers assess your ability to deliver.

**Include**:
- Academic qualifications and positions
- **Publication record** — Focus on quality (high-impact journals, citation counts)
- **Relevant grants** — Past and current funded projects
- **Supervision record** — PhD students, postdocs supervised
- **Selected publications** (typically 5–10 most relevant) — Briefly note your contribution and relevance to the proposed project

**Tips**:
- Highlight publications directly related to the proposal topic
- Show a track record of completing funded projects successfully
- For junior applicants (ECS): emphasize potential and early achievements

---

## Budget Justification

A well-justified budget reflects careful planning.

**Common categories**:
| Category | Notes |
|----------|-------|
| Personnel (RA/Postdoc) | Justify role, duration, and salary level |
| Equipment | Quotes required for major items; explain why existing equipment is insufficient |
| Travel | Conference attendance, fieldwork, collaboration visits — link to project needs |
| Consumables | Lab supplies, software licenses, data access fees |
| Others | Participant costs, publication fees, etc. |

**Tips**:
- PI salary is NOT covered by RGC grants
- Every line item should connect to a research objective
- Avoid round numbers without justification
- For CRF: clearly split budget across institutions with rationale

---

## Writing Quality Checklist

### Language and Tone
- [ ] Formal academic English throughout
- [ ] No grammatical errors or typos
- [ ] Active voice preferred ("We will develop..." not "It will be developed...")
- [ ] Confident but not overclaiming
- [ ] Jargon defined on first use

### Structure and Formatting
- [ ] Clear section headings matching RGC template
- [ ] Consistent font, spacing, and margins
- [ ] Figures and tables numbered with descriptive captions
- [ ] Cross-references to figures/tables in the text
- [ ] Page limit respected

### Content
- [ ] Objectives are specific and measurable
- [ ] Literature review is comprehensive and current
- [ ] Methodology is detailed and justified
- [ ] Feasibility is demonstrated (preliminary results, expertise)
- [ ] Timeline is realistic
- [ ] Budget is well justified
- [ ] Innovation is clearly articulated

---

## Common Mistakes to Avoid

1. **Too ambitious** — Proposing more than can be achieved in the funding period
2. **Too vague** — Generic methodology without specific details
3. **Literature gaps** — Missing key references that reviewers will notice
4. **Weak rationale** — Not convincingly arguing why this research matters now
5. **Ignoring feasibility** — No preliminary data or track record to support the approach
6. **Poor presentation** — Messy formatting, inconsistent style, spelling errors
7. **Budget disconnected from plan** — Budget items not clearly linked to objectives
8. **Overlap not addressed** — Failing to distinguish from other funded/pending projects

---

## GRF vs CRF: Key Differences in Writing

| Aspect | GRF | CRF |
|--------|-----|-----|
| PI structure | Single PI (+ Co-Is) | Multiple PIs across institutions |
| Page limit | 15 pages | 20 pages |
| Collaboration | Optional | Must justify necessity |
| Budget | Single institution | Split across institutions |
| Scope | Focused research question | Broader, multi-faceted investigation |
| Review emphasis | Scientific merit + PI track record | Above + collaboration quality |

---

## After Rejection

- Read reviewer comments carefully and objectively
- Identify specific weaknesses cited
- Revise and strengthen those areas
- Seek feedback from successful colleagues
- Consider whether a different scheme (GRF vs CRF vs ECS) might be more appropriate
- Resubmit in the next cycle — persistence is key

---

## References

- See `references/writing-guide.md` for additional writing strategies
- See `references/review-criteria.md` for detailed review criteria and common pitfalls