Proposal Polish

Normative authority: docs/SCIPAPER_STANDARD.md. The L0 lexical policy (Tier A, Tier B caps, em-dash zero) and the rewrite-eligibility invariants (§6: numbers, citations, stance, qualifiers) apply to proposals exactly as to papers. What changes is the register: a proposal is sold on vision plus feasibility, so ambition language that /sci-paper:paper would trim is appropriate here when a credible plan backs it.

Provenance: adapted from academic-humanizer Layer 6 and its examples (github.com/AIScientists-Dev/academic-humanizer, MIT License, Copyright (c) 2026 AIScientists-Dev; that skill's paper-mode content now lives in /sci-paper:de-ai). Restructured to the sci-paper feedback contract.

proposal-polish — funding-proposal editing mode

When to use

Editing or reviewing funding proposals: NSF Project Summary / Project Description (including CAREER), NIH Specific Aims / Significance / Innovation / Approach, fellowship and foundation proposals. Not for journal manuscripts (use /sci-paper:paper + /sci-paper:paper-review), and never to fabricate results, partners, funding history, or support letters. Using this skill does not remove the obligation to follow the funder's AI-use disclosure policy.

Core register shift (vs. paper mode)

A paper reports finished results; a proposal is scored on vision plus feasibility. Consequences:

• Keep and deploy ambition ("long-term goal", "transformative", "establish a foundation") when preliminary data, prior results, a classical foundation, or a collaborator credibly backs it. Do not flatten vision the way paper mode trims significance hype.
• The discipline is claim ↔ feasibility, not claim ↔ finished evidence. For every aim and promised outcome: is the ambition matched by a credible means (preliminary data, a prior method or publication, a classical result built upon, a collaborator or letter, staged de-risking)? If yes, keep the ambitious verb. If no, attach the missing evidence or scale the claim to what the plan supports. If the support does not exist, flag the gap for the author; never paper over it and never invent it.
• L0 still applies. Tier A words, em-dashes, and Tier B excess are tells in proposals too; an AI-flavored proposal reads generic exactly where reviewers decide the score.

Structure: the score lives in the first pages

Reviewers form a score from the opening and skim the rest to confirm it. Spend most editing effort there.

• NSF. A one-page Project Summary with the review criteria spelled out (Overview, Intellectual Merit, Broader Impacts, each self-contained). The Project Description opens with long-term vision, this proposal's goal, the gap, the specific thrusts or aims, and the payoff, ideally within the first one to two pages, with one overview figure. Broader Impacts must be substantive and integrated, never an afterthought.
• NIH (R01-class). The Specific Aims page is the whole proposal in one page and is the most-read, most-decisive page. Standard arc: (1) the problem, what is known, the gap and critical need; (2) the long-term goal and the central hypothesis with its rationale; (3) "The objective of this application is ..." plus how the hypothesis was formed; (4) two to three Aims, each a one-line goal, a phrase on approach, and the expected outcome; (5) a payoff paragraph stating what changes if it succeeds. Significance, Innovation, and Approach are then separately scored sections.
• First-pages completeness check. By the end of page 1 (NIH Aims) or pages 2-3 (NSF), the reader must already hold the hook (why it matters, concretely), the gap (what is missing and its cost), the central idea (the approach in one sentence), the aims (crisp and parallel), and the payoff. If any is missing or buried, fix that before touching later sections. A reviewer unconvinced by page 3 does not recover on page 10.

Proposal-specific weak moves (fix these)

• Vague importance. "This is an important/timely problem", "X has many applications". Replace with the specific gap and the cost of the gap. Example fix: "Without bounds on how measurement noise propagates to diagnosis, clinical models are tuned by trial and error, the inefficiency this proposal removes."
• Method-as-aim. An aim naming a technique instead of a question or outcome. "Aim 2: Apply transfer learning to the dataset" becomes "Aim 2: Determine whether fusing wearable and lab signals improves early detection, and for which patient subgroups it helps or hurts."
• Dominoed aims. Aim 2/3 collapse if Aim 1 fails; reviewers flag this as fragile. Phrase aims as parallel and independently valuable; where one genuinely depends on another, state the fallback.
• Ambition without feasibility. Every bold claim gets a footing beside it: a preliminary figure, a prior publication, a classical theorem built upon, a named collaborator or letter. Use only the PI's own real, supplied record.
• Boilerplate Broader Impacts / training plan. "We will mentor students and disseminate via talks" is filler. Make it concrete, enumerated, and tied to the research: named programs, named courses or tools, measurable outreach.
• Hedged central hypothesis. The Aims-page hypothesis is a falsifiable commitment, not "we will explore whether possibly ...". Calibrated hedging belongs in the Approach's interpretation, not in the central claim.

Preserve and deploy (funded-proposal craft)

These read as strength; keep or add them rather than editing them out.

• Vision framing: a bold long-term goal up front, with this proposal as one principled step toward it.
• Run-in lead-ins for scannability: bold or italic Goal:, Motivation:, Innovation:, Aim N (one-line mission). Reviewers skim; visible structure earns reading time. (The manuscript colon-elaboration rule does not apply to these labeled run-ins.)
• A concrete running example that stays consistent across aims and makes an abstract method vivid.
• Sharp aim statements posed as questions: a crisp open question reads as a well-posed problem; a boxed or set-off question per aim works well.
• Classical anchors: grounding new work in a named inequality, capacity notion, or established test signals rigor and lineage.
• Team standing as feasibility evidence, placed early: prior funded work, preliminary results, publications, collaborators, and demonstration partners belong where they de-risk the aims. A real track record is evidence, not boasting. (Only the PI's own real, supplied record; never invent funding, results, partners, or letters.)

Process

1. Read the proposal and any supplied prior funded proposal or writing sample; note the agency and mechanism (NSF core/CAREER, NIH R01/R21, fellowship) and its structural expectations above.
2. Audit, do not edit yet. List (a) first-pages completeness (hook / gap / central idea / aims / payoff, each present or missing with location), (b) every weak move found, with location and proposed fix, (c) every aim-or-promise's feasibility footing (present, weak, or absent), (d) L0 findings from the shared linter: python tools/ai_ism_lint.py <file> --field <field> (skip the field flag when no profile applies; structural axes calibrated on journal corpora are degraded for proposals and advisory-only).
3. Rewrite. Same aims, same evidence, same citations. Fix weak moves, attach feasibility footings beside ambitious claims, keep the vision, clear L0 targets, and edit the score-forming pages hardest. Rewrite-eligibility invariants (SCIPAPER_STANDARD §6) hold: no number, citation, stance, or qualifier changes without the author's source.
4. Report. Cleaned text plus a change log: weak moves fixed by type, feasibility gaps flagged for the author (with what evidence would close them), L0 before/after counts, and any structural expectations the draft still misses. Confirm no number, result, or citation was altered and no support was invented.

Anti-patterns

• Flattening the long-term vision because paper mode would trim it.
• "Improving" a proposal by inventing preliminary results, partners, letters, or funding history: that is fabrication, not editing.
• Leaving a hedged central hypothesis because hedging is legitimate in papers.
• Spending effort on later sections while the Aims/Summary page is weak.
• Treating funder page limits, formatting, and deadline rules from memory as current: consult the funder's live policy documents (NSF PAPPG, NIH application guide) for binding requirements.