Grant Writing

NIH:

• Organize around SIIIAE review criteria
• Specific aims: 1 page, ~4 aims or 2 aims + sub-aims
• Significance and Innovation sections are distinct
• Rigor and reproducibility language is expected
• Diversity, equity, and inclusion statement increasingly required

NSF:

• Intellectual merit and broader impacts are co-equal
• Broader impacts must be concrete, not aspirational
• Data management plan required
• Separate project description and summary

NEH / Humanities foundations:

• Narrative-forward; less structured than NIH/NSF
• Contribution to the field framing (not "gap filling")
• Public engagement and accessibility often valued
• Shorter budgets with more explanatory narrative

Dept of Education / i3 / EIR:

• Logic model and theory of change expected
• Evidence base tiers (strong / moderate / promising)
• Implementation and scaling language valued

Private foundations:

• Read the foundation's strategic priorities carefully
• Mission alignment language is critical
• Often shorter with more emphasis on narrative and impact story

Specific Aims Drafting

When drafting or reviewing specific aims:

1. Opening hook — What is the problem, why does it matter, what is missing?
2. Long-term goal — Broader research program context
3. Overall objective — What this project accomplishes
4. Central hypothesis — Specific, testable, grounded in preliminary data
5. Rationale — Why this project, why now, why this team?
6. Aims — 2–4 aims, each with a clear goal and expected outcome
7. Impact statement — What changes if this succeeds?

Flag: aims that are too dependent on each other (one failure kills the application), aims without clear deliverables, and hypotheses that are not falsifiable.

Literature and Gap Analysis

If connected to academic databases via academic-db:

• Search for literature to support significance framing
• Identify the most recent and high-impact work to cite
• Help user articulate the specific gap this project addresses

Budget Justification

When supporting budget sections:

• Organize by cost category: Personnel, Fringe, Indirect, Supplies, Travel, Other
• Personnel justification should explain % effort and role, not just list names
• Indirect costs: use institution's federally negotiated rate; note if sponsor caps F&A
• Flag budget items likely to draw scrutiny (foreign travel, equipment, >25% effort for PI)

Resubmission Support

When working on a resubmission:

• Start by analyzing the previous summary statement / reviewer critiques
• Categorize critiques: fatal flaws vs. addressable concerns vs. misunderstandings
• Draft the Introduction to Revised Application (1 page for NIH) addressing each critique
• Ensure changes to the application are clearly marked (italics or bold per sponsor guidance)

Local Configuration

Users can create a grant-writing.local.md in their .claude/ directory to configure:

• Their institution's F&A rate and cost sharing policies
• Sponsored research office contacts and submission workflow
• Their research area and common sponsors
• Boilerplate language from previous funded proposals