# Grant Writing > Write research grant proposals with guidance for NSF, NIH, DARPA, and other agencies. Use when preparing grant applications, developing research plans, or writing broader impacts statements. Use when this capability is needed. - Skill: `tomevault-io/grant-writing` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/grant-writing` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/grant-writing/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/grant-writing --- # Grant Writing Guidance for preparing research grant proposals. ## When to Use - Preparing grant applications - Developing research plans - Writing broader impacts statements - Creating project timelines - Budgeting research projects ## Grant Proposal Structure ### Standard Components | Component | Purpose | Typical Length | |-----------|---------|----------------| | **Abstract/Summary** | Concise overview | 1 page | | **Specific Aims** | Goals and hypotheses | 1 page | | **Introduction** | Background and significance | 2-3 pages | | **Research Plan** | Detailed methodology | 6-12 pages | | **Broader Impacts** | Societal benefits | 1-2 pages | | **Timeline** | Project schedule | 1 page | | **Budget** | Financial plan | Agency-specific | | **References** | Citations | As needed | ## Writing by Section ### Abstract/Summary **Goal**: Enable reviewers to understand the project quickly. **Structure** (usually 1 page): 1. Problem and significance (2-3 sentences) 2. Knowledge gap (1-2 sentences) 3. Central hypothesis (1 sentence) 4. Specific aims overview (2-3 sentences) 5. Expected outcomes (2-3 sentences) 6. Impact/significance (1-2 sentences) **Tips**: - Write last, after rest of proposal is complete - Make it self-contained - Include key methods - Emphasize innovation and impact ### Specific Aims **Goal**: Clear, compelling statement of objectives. **Structure** (typically 1 page): 1. **Opening paragraph**: Hook + significance + gap 2. **Central hypothesis**: One clear statement 3. **Specific Aim 1**: First objective 4. **Specific Aim 2**: Second objective 5. **Specific Aim 3**: Third objective (optional) 6. **Expected outcomes**: What success looks like 7. **Impact statement**: Why this matters **Aim Format**: ```markdown **Aim N: [Action verb] [What] [To achieve what]** Hypothesis: [Testable statement] Approach: [Brief method description] Expected outcome: [What we'll learn/produce] ``` **Good Aim Characteristics**: - Clear and testable - Achievable in proposed timeframe - Each aim contributes to overall goal - Aims are related but not dependent - Failure of one aim doesn't doom others ### Research Plan **Introduction/Background**: - Establish significance - Review relevant literature - Identify knowledge gap - State how you'll address the gap **Preliminary Data** (if applicable): - Show feasibility - Demonstrate expertise - Support proposed approach - Present pilot results **Research Design and Methods**: For each aim: ```markdown ## Aim N: [Title] ### Rationale [Why this aim is important] ### Approach [Detailed methodology] ### Expected Results [What you anticipate finding] ### Potential Problems and Alternatives [Risks and mitigation strategies] ### Timeline [When this aim will be completed] ``` ### Broader Impacts **Categories** (NSF): 1. Advancing knowledge and understanding 2. Promoting teaching, training, mentoring 3. Broadening participation of underrepresented groups 4. Enhancing infrastructure for research/education 5. Disseminating results broadly 6. Benefiting society **Tips**: - Be specific and concrete - Show track record if possible - Connect to your research - Include measurable outcomes ### Timeline and Milestones **Gantt Chart Format**: | Task | Y1 Q1 | Y1 Q2 | Y1 Q3 | Y1 Q4 | Y2 Q1 | Y2 Q2 | ... | |------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-----| | Aim 1.1 | X | X | | | | | | | Aim 1.2 | | X | X | | | | | | Aim 2.1 | | | X | X | X | | | | Milestone 1 | | | M | | | | | | ... | | | | | | | | **Key Milestones**: - Define clear go/no-go decision points - Include deliverables - Show interdependencies ## Agency-Specific Guidance ### NSF **Key Criteria**: 1. **Intellectual Merit**: Potential to advance knowledge 2. **Broader Impacts**: Benefit to society **Tips**: - Balance both criteria equally - Be explicit about how you address each - Use their exact language **Common Programs** (CS/ML): - CAREER (early career faculty) - CRII (research initiation) - Core Programs (CCF, IIS, CNS) - SaTC (security) ### NIH **Key Criteria**: 1. **Significance**: Does it address an important problem? 2. **Investigator(s)**: Are researchers qualified? 3. **Innovation**: Does it employ novel concepts? 4. **Approach**: Is methodology sound? 5. **Environment**: Is institutional support adequate? **Tips**: - Frame in terms of health impact - Include preliminary data - Address rigor and reproducibility ### DARPA **Key Characteristics**: - High-risk, high-reward - Transformative potential - Clear metrics - Aggressive timelines **Tips**: - Emphasize breakthrough potential - Show awareness of state-of-the-art - Define clear success metrics - Include go/no-go decision points ## Common Mistakes ### Content Mistakes - Vague or untestable hypotheses - Aims that are dependent (all-or-nothing) - Overpromising what can be achieved - Not addressing potential failures - Weak preliminary data ### Structural Mistakes - Too much background, not enough plan - Burying key points - Not following page limits - Unclear organization - Missing required sections ### Tone Mistakes - Too tentative ("we hope to...") - Too arrogant ("we will definitively prove...") - Not acknowledging risks - Ignoring competition ## Quality Checklist ### Before Submission - [ ] Follows all formatting requirements - [ ] All sections complete - [ ] Specific aims are clear and testable - [ ] Timeline is realistic - [ ] Budget is justified - [ ] Broader impacts are concrete - [ ] Preliminary data supports feasibility - [ ] Risks and alternatives addressed - [ ] References are complete - [ ] Proofread thoroughly ### Review Simulation - [ ] Can someone outside your area understand it? - [ ] Are the aims achievable in the timeframe? - [ ] Is innovation clearly articulated? - [ ] Are you the right person to do this? - [ ] Would you fund this if you were a reviewer? ## References See `references/` folder for: - `nsf_guidelines.md`: NSF-specific guidance - `nih_guidelines.md`: NIH-specific guidance --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/chicagohai) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.