CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

research-grants

Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan NSTC. Agency-specific formatting, review criteria, budget preparation, broader impacts, significance statements, innovation narratives, and compliance with submission requirements.

56

Quality

70%

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 ./bundled/skills/research-grants/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

56%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 thorough, well-structured grant-writing guide with concrete actionable detail and a clear phased workflow, but it is notably verbose with conceptual padding and—more seriously—references numerous bundle files (including all scripts) that are not actually present. Trimming general knowledge and reconciling references with the real bundle would substantially improve it.

Suggestions

Remove or condense conceptual padding Claude already knows (agency missions, generic "use active voice / avoid jargon" writing advice, and verbatim review-criteria recaps) to tighten conciseness.

Reconcile every referenced path with the actual bundle: either add the missing references/assets/scripts (budget_preparation, review_criteria, timeline_planning, team_building, resubmission_strategies, research_methods, funding_mechanisms, timeline_gantt_template, biosketch_templates/, and the scripts/) or remove the dangling references.

Move the inlined agency-specific overviews into their corresponding reference files so SKILL.md stays a lean overview, and fix the duplicated "For detailed review criteria…" line and orphaned DARPA bullets.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~930-line body includes substantial conceptual padding Claude already knows (agency missions, generic writing advice such as "use active voice" and "avoid jargon", and lengthy review-criteria recaps), making it noticeably verbose with several padded sections.

2 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, specific guidance—page limits (15 NSF, 12 R01), dollar thresholds ($5,000 equipment, $250K modular, $221,900 salary cap), specific-aims structure, and budget categories—though complete worked examples live only in templates rather than inline.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The five-phase Workflow for Grant Development is clearly sequenced with timeframes, activities, outputs, and verify/confirm checkpoints, but validation is soft (no explicit fail→fix→retry loops) and there is minor editorial sloppiness (a duplicated "For detailed review criteria…" line and orphaned DARPA bullets).

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is one level deep with dedicated Resources/Templates/Scripts navigation sections, but many referenced files do not exist (budget_preparation, review_criteria, timeline_planning, team_building, resubmission_strategies, research_methods, funding_mechanisms, timeline_gantt_template, biosketch_templates/, and the entire scripts/ directory), and large agency-specific detail is inlined rather than split into references.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

75%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 and well-differentiated, naming concrete grant-writing actions across five agencies, but it omits an explicit "Use when…" trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3. Adding trigger phrasing and a few natural synonyms ("grant", "funding") would raise the remaining dimensions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when writing or revising grant proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, or Taiwan NSTC, or when preparing specific aims, budgets, or broader-impacts statements."

Include common natural synonyms users say, such as "grant", "funding opportunity", "R01", and "specific aims", to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Keep the third-person voice (already correct) and avoid first/second person when revising.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions ("Agency-specific formatting, review criteria, budget preparation, broader impacts, significance statements, innovation narratives, and compliance") across five named agencies, giving comprehensive coverage rather than a single generic action.

5 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear and detailed, but there is no "Use when…" clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so per the rubric guideline completeness is capped at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural agency acronyms (NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, NSTC) plus "research proposals", "budget preparation", and "broader impacts" are terms users actually say, but common synonyms like "grant", "funding", "R01", and "specific aims" are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Targets a clear niche (competitive research proposals for five specific funding agencies) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (933 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 18 missing

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository

foryourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-Skills

Path

bundled/skills/research-grants/SKILL.md

Revision

5ce2258

Reviewed

Table of Contents

DiscoveryImplementationValidation

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.

Claim skill