CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

grant-proposal

Draft a structured grant proposal from research ideas and literature. Supports KAKENHI (Japan), NSF (US), NSFC (China, including 面上/青年/优青/杰青/海外优青/重点), ERC (EU), DFG (Germany), SNSF (Switzerland), ARC (Australia), NWO (Netherlands), and generic formats. Use when user says "write grant", "grant proposal", "申請書", "write KAKENHI", "科研費", "基金申请", "写基金", "NSF proposal", or wants to turn research ideas into a funding application.

Quality

81%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%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.

A well-orchestrated, instruction-only skill body with an exemplary workflow: explicit checkpoints, state recovery, review feedback loops, and a final checklist. Its weaknesses are token efficiency — duplicated specification blocks and a monolithic 640-line single file — plus a couple of peripheral steps (figures, funded-project search) lacking concrete executable examples.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the body: merge the Constants section with the Parameter Pass-Through table, consolidate the Grant Type Specifications tables with Phase 3's Grant-Specific Drafting Guidelines into one location, and keep the funding/publish track diagram in only one section.

Move the nine per-agency specification tables into per-agency reference files (e.g., references/kakenhi.md, references/nsfc.md) and keep a one-line summary per agency in SKILL.md, enabling progressive disclosure and a leaner overview.

Add concrete executable examples for the vaguer steps: sample WebSearch queries for the KAKEN/NSF/NSFC funded-project lookups, and a minimal matplotlib/SVG snippet for the overview diagram or Gantt chart.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~640-line body is dense with genuinely specialized guidance (agency-specific sections, sub-type age limits, cultural norms) and avoids explaining basics, but contains real duplication: the Constants block duplicates the Parameter Pass-Through table, the Grant Type Specifications tables are restated in Phase 3's Grant-Specific Drafting Guidelines, and the funding/publish track diagram appears twice. Mostly efficient but could be meaningfully tightened, matching anchor 3; not anchor 2 since there is no basic-concept padding or fluffy verbosity.

3 / 5

Actionability

Highly concrete throughout: literal sub-skill invocations ("/research-lit \"$ARGUMENTS\""), full spawn_agent/send_input message templates, the GRANT_STATE.json schema, file-tree output layouts, and matrix/checklist templates. Minor gaps keep it below anchor 5: figure generation ("generate clean SVG or matplotlib directly via code") and the funded-project WebSearch step give no concrete executable examples.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0-5 are clearly sequenced with explicit 🚦 checkpoints and ⛔ STOP-wait instructions, a state-persistence/resume mechanism for error recovery, a review→revise→re-review feedback loop with severity levels (CRITICAL/MAJOR/MINOR), and a final pre-completion checklist — matching anchor 5 (explicit validation steps, feedback loops, checklists).

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and the nine per-agency specification tables (~75+ lines of detail) are inlined monolithically where per-agency reference files would keep the SKILL.md body lean. Internal heading structure is good and the shared-references links are clearly signaled, placing it above anchor 2's 'minimal structure' but squarely at anchor 3's 'content that should be separate is inline'.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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.

A strong description that explicitly states what the skill does and when to use it, with comprehensive multi-agency scope and natural multilingual trigger phrases. The only gaps are minor: a single action verb carries the 'what', and a few common trigger synonyms (grant application, 国自然, other agency names) are omitted.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Draft a structured grant proposal from research ideas and literature" is one concrete action, but the enumeration of nine agencies with sub-types (面上/青年/优青/杰青/海外优青/重点) provides comprehensive, non-vague scope coverage. It falls between anchor 3 (1-2 actions, not comprehensive) and anchor 4 (several actions, minor gaps): coverage is comprehensive but only one distinct action is listed, so it is noticeably above the anchor-3 example without reaching the multi-action anchor 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both "what" ("Draft a structured grant proposal from research ideas and literature. Supports KAKENHI...NWO...and generic formats") and "when" ("Use when user says 'write grant', 'grant proposal', '申請書'...") with concrete quoted trigger phrases, exactly matching the anchor-5 example pattern.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit natural triggers include "write grant", "grant proposal", "申請書", "科研費", "基金申请", "写基金", and "NSF proposal", giving good multilingual keyword coverage. A few natural terms are missing (e.g., "grant application", "funding proposal", "国自然", and the other agency names as triggers), which keeps it below the comprehensive anchor 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (funding-application drafting) with distinct, grant-specific triggers across multiple languages; only negligible overlap with general research-writing skills, matching the anchor-5 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (642 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 4 suspicious

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep

Path

skills/skills-codex/grant-proposal/SKILL.md

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.