grants

NIH grant research skill for clinical researchers. Grill-me intake (research idea + career stage + preliminary data + environment + submission posture + known institute targets) locks down the funding strategy before any search runs. Runs a 5-facet Consensus positioning analysis (with draft Significance/Innovation language), maps the research to the right NIH institutes and study sections via RePORTER, finds NOSIs and funded overlap, and produces an editable Word document (.docx) with budget/scope-aware mechanism recommendations, submission timelines, and a mandatory program officer recommendation. Use when the user asks about research funding or makes any grant-related request (e.g., 'grants for [topic]', 'find grants for my research idea', 'what grants match my research', 'help me find NIH funding', 'grant opportunities for my research'). NIH-only scope — non-NIH funders (PCORI, DOD CDMRP, VA, foundations) are out of scope and flagged at intake.

Quality

92%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

—

The risk profile of this skill

Quality

Content

85%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 is a well-structured, executable multi-phase workflow with real bundle files and strong validation/feedback loops. Its main weakness is mild verbosity from repeated scope statements and per-question rationales that could be tightened.

Suggestions

Consolidate the NIH-only scope statement to a single occurrence; the portability note, the scope blockquote, and the frontmatter all restate it.

Trim or compress the '*Why I'm asking:*' rationales — they justify the intake design but add tokens beyond what execution requires.

Provide one fully-instantiated end-to-end curl example (real terms substituted) alongside the parameterized templates to close the actionability gap.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Largely efficient with tables, code blocks, and concrete commands, but the repeated 'Why I'm asking:' rationales and the NIH-only-scope statement appearing three times add tokens that could be trimmed. Not a 3 because no basic-concept padding is present.	4 / 5
Actionability	Executable curl POST payloads with full JSON, python script invocations with flags, and a concrete zip-integrity validation command cover the cases; minor gaps are the unsubstituted '<key term 1>' placeholders and the DOCX generation being delegated to the reference rather than shown inline.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Four phases are clearly sequenced with numbered forcing questions, an explicit stop condition after Q6, an error-handling table with retry/feedback loops, and a Phase 4 validation step (zip-integrity test + required-section check) for the batch document operation.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Body is an overview pointing to three real, one-level-deep reference files (each 'answers exactly one decision') and three scripts with a clear Tooling table; inline links are well-signaled and content is appropriately split out of SKILL.md.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

100%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 specific, complete, and distinct: it names concrete pipeline actions, gives explicit 'Use when' triggers with natural phrasings, and draws a clear NIH-only boundary. It is a strong, low-conflict description.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Runs a 5-facet Consensus positioning analysis', 'maps the research to the right NIH institutes and study sections via RePORTER, finds NOSIs and funded overlap, and produces an editable Word document (.docx) with budget/scope-aware mechanism recommendations' — covering the full pipeline comprehensively.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' (intake, positioning, institute mapping, DOCX output) and 'when' ('Use when the user asks about research funding or makes any grant-related request') with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Provides comprehensive natural trigger phrases users would actually say — 'grants for [topic]', 'find grants for my research idea', 'what grants match my research', 'help me find NIH funding', 'grant opportunities for my research' — with multiple synonyms.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clear NIH-grants niche with distinct triggers and explicit scope boundary ('NIH-only scope — non-NIH funders ... are out of scope and flagged at intake'), minimizing conflict with adjacent skills.	5 / 5
	Total	20 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Path: research/grants/skills/grants/SKILL.md
Commit: 19392f7

Reviewed: ~24 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.