Lists a concrete action ('Draft a structured grant proposal from research ideas and literature') and enumerates multiple specific funding agencies with sub-types (e.g., NSFC sub-categories like 面上/青年/优青/杰青/海外优青/重点). This is highly specific about what the skill does.

Clearly answers both 'what' (draft structured grant proposals from research ideas, supporting multiple funding agencies) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' clause with specific trigger phrases and the general case of turning research ideas into funding applications).

Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms across multiple languages: 'write grant', 'grant proposal', '申請書', 'write KAKENHI', '科研費', '基金申请', '写基金', 'NSF proposal', and 'funding application'. These are terms users would naturally say in English, Japanese, and Chinese.

Highly distinctive niche: grant proposal writing for specific funding agencies. The combination of agency names (KAKENHI, NSF, NSFC, ERC, DFG, etc.) and multilingual trigger terms makes it very unlikely to conflict with other skills.

Extremely verbose at ~500+ lines. Extensively explains grant writing concepts Claude already knows (e.g., 'Grant proposals argue for future work, not completed work'), includes massive specification tables for every grant agency that could be in separate reference files, and repeats information across sections (e.g., grant-specific criteria appear in both the specifications table and the drafting guidelines).

Provides concrete workflow steps, specific MCP call formats, and detailed section templates. However, much of the 'actionable' content is actually orchestration pseudocode (invoking sub-skills like /research-lit, /novelty-check) rather than executable code, and the actual prose-writing guidance is more descriptive than prescriptive (e.g., 'Write complete prose — no outlines or placeholders' without showing what good grant prose looks like).

Excellent multi-phase workflow with explicit checkpoints (⛔ STOP HERE), clear phase numbering (0-5), state persistence via GRANT_STATE.json for recovery, severity-ranked reviewer feedback handling, and explicit user confirmation gates. The feedback loop (draft → review → revise → re-review) is well-defined with MAX_REVIEW_ROUNDS.

Monolithic wall of text with all grant type specifications, drafting guidelines, figure generation instructions, review protocols, and output formats inline. The grant type specification tables alone (~100 lines) should be in a separate reference file. References to sub-skills and shared protocols exist but the core content that should be split out (agency specs, LaTeX templates, drafting guidelines per agency) is all crammed into one massive file.