CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

grant-proposal-assistant

Assist with biomedical grant proposal drafting, structure, and revision; use when preparing fundable proposal sections, aligning aims and methods, or improving reviewer-facing clarity.

58

Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/grant-proposal-assistant/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

53%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body delivers concrete, executable guidance and a reasonable file structure, but is weighed down by substantial generic boilerplate and redundant sections. Workflow clarity is moderate and a reference path mismatch undercuts progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Remove generic boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) and consolidate the three overlapping output sections into one — keep only grant-specific guidance.

Replace the abstract 5-step process Workflow with the concrete grant-drafting sequence (Specific Aims → Significance/Innovation/Approach → Budget → review-checklist validation) with an explicit validate→fix→retry loop.

Fix the budget reference path (budget_templates.xlsx → budget_templates.md) and move inlined Agency-Specific Notes / Best Practices into the corresponding reference files.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is noticeably padded with generic boilerplate Claude already knows — Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria/Test Cases, Lifecycle Status, and three overlapping output sections (Output Requirements, Output Contract, Response Template) — diluting the skill-specific content.

2 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete executable commands (py_compile, --section project_summary, --agency NIH), a parameters table, and a runnable library example; only minor gaps like the `[...]` placeholder in the budget example hold it below fully copy-paste ready.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A sequenced 5-step Workflow exists with some checkpoints (stop-early, fallback), but it is generic process-control rather than the actual grant-drafting sequence, and there is no concrete validate→fix→retry feedback loop tied to output generation.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A References section lists one-level-deep template files that mostly exist on disk, but the body inlines content that could live in references (Agency-Specific Notes, Best Practices) and mislabels the budget file as budget_templates.xlsx when the actual file is budget_templates.md.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

83%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is well-formed: third-person voice, clear what/when structure, and a defined biomedical-grant niche. It is strong on completeness but slightly under-specified on trigger-term synonyms and could be more sharply distinct from sibling research-writing skills.

Suggestions

Add natural trigger synonyms users actually say — e.g. "NIH R01/R21", "NSF", "Specific Aims", "funding" — to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Sharpen the niche by naming the funding-agency context in the description itself, reducing overlap with generic scientific-writing skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names several concrete actions — "drafting, structure, and revision", "preparing fundable proposal sections", "aligning aims and methods", "improving reviewer-facing clarity" — but a couple remain slightly abstract, so it sits just below comprehensive.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Assist with biomedical grant proposal drafting, structure, and revision") and when ("use when preparing fundable proposal sections, aligning aims and methods, or improving reviewer-facing clarity") with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keywords ("grant proposal", "proposal sections", "aims and methods", "reviewer-facing clarity") but missing common synonyms users say like "NIH", "R01", "NSF", "Specific Aims", or "funding".

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Biomedical grant proposal" is a clear niche with distinct triggers, but there is minor overlap risk with adjacent scientific/research-writing skills (the source repo is medical-research-skills), keeping it just below minimal conflict risk.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
aipoch/medical-research-skills
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.