quantumquirkxyz Contract
- Input: research programme + target agency.
- Output: structured proposal draft + reviewer critique.
- Side effects: none.
- Dependencies: none.
- Stop condition: draft + critique + checklist.
- Risk: low.
- Boundary: produces draft text; the human submits.
Math Grant Proposal Structuring
Turn a research programme into a grant proposal that matches the agency's review criteria — and stress-test it from the reviewer's chair.
When to use
- The user is preparing an NSF / ERC / Simons / MSCA / NSERC application.
- A research group needs a multi-PI budget narrative.
- An early-career researcher is drafting a starter grant.
Process
1. Read the call
Extract:
- Award type — individual, collaborative, postdoc, equipment.
- Review criteria — intellectual merit / broader impacts (NSF), excellence / impact (ERC), etc.
- Page limits — exact numbers per section.
- Required attachments — biosketch, DMP, budget justification, letters.
- Deadlines — internal + external.
Completion criterion: requirements checklist saved.
2. Articulate the programme
- Central question in one sentence.
- Why now — what changed (new theorem, new technique, new data).
- Aims — 3–5 specific, measurable aims.
- Approach — methods, expected obstacles, alternatives.
Completion criterion: programme stated concretely; aims measurable.
3. Map to criteria
For each aim, state:
- How it advances intellectual merit (or equivalent).
- How it advances broader impacts (or equivalent).
- What deliverables (preprints, talks, software, mentoring) result.
Completion criterion: each aim maps to a criterion explicitly.
4. Budget and timeline
- Personnel — PI, postdocs, grad students; named or TBD.
- Travel — conferences, collaboration visits.
- Equipment — compute, software licences.
- Indirect costs — per agency rules.
- Timeline — Gantt-style milestones per year.
Completion criterion: budget matches agency categories; timeline realistic.
5. Reviewer-perspective critique
Write the critique as if reviewing:
- Strengths —