grant-proposal
This Claude Code skill generates structured grant proposals aligned with funder priorities, addressing why many applications fail by focusing on funder requirements rather than applicant needs. It requires funder name, grant amount, project description, organizational information, funder priorities, and submission deadlines, then produces a complete proposal including problem statement, SMART objectives, methodology by phase, outcomes framework, evaluation plan, and itemized budget narrative with justifications.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills /tmp/grant-proposal && cp -r /tmp/grant-proposal/plugins/pm-cross/skills/grant-proposal ~/.claude/skills/grant-proposalSKILL.md
# Grant Proposal Skill Produces structured grant proposals tailored to the funder priorities — the most common reason grants fail is writing about what you want to do rather than what the funder wants to fund. ## Required Inputs - **Funder name and grant programme** - **Grant amount sought** - **Project description** (rough notes are fine) - **Your organisation** (type, track record, capacity) - **Funder stated priorities** (copy from their guidance — essential) - **Word or page limits** - **Deadline** ## Output Structure --- ### Project Title [Informative and memorable. Should convey the problem being solved and the approach.] ### 1. Project Summary / Abstract (200-300 words — written last, placed first) [What you will do, why it matters, who will benefit, measurable outcomes. Every sentence earns its place.] ### 2. Problem Statement / Need - **The problem:** [Specific, evidenced — use data] - **Who is affected:** [Population, scale, geography] - **Current situation:** [What exists and why it is insufficient] - **Consequence of inaction:** [What happens if not funded] - **Why your organisation:** [Track record, relationships, expertise] Funder test: does this problem align with [funder] stated priorities? Make the connection explicit. ### 3. Project Objectives 3-5 SMART objectives: - **Objective 1:** [Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound] ### 4. Methodology / Approach **Phase 1: [Name]** (Months 1-X) [What will happen, who will do it, what is produced] **Key activities:** - [Activity — specific] **What makes this approach innovative or effective:** [Why this over alternatives] ### 5. Impact and Outcomes | Level | Description | Measure | |---|---|---| | Output | [Tangible deliverable] | [How counted] | | Short-term outcome | [Immediate change] | [How measured] | | Medium-term outcome | [Behaviour change] | [How measured] | | Long-term impact | [Systemic change] | [How evidenced] | **Direct beneficiaries:** [Who and how many] **Sustainability:** [How work continues beyond grant period] ### 6. Evaluation Plan - Who evaluates, how, when, what is measured, how findings are shared ### 7. Budget Narrative | Budget line | Amount | Justification | |---|---|---| | Staff costs | £[amount] | [Role, % FTE, duration, salary] | | Travel | £[amount] | [Specific journeys named] | | Equipment | £[amount] | [Itemised] | | Indirect costs | £[amount] | [[X]% of direct — check policy] | | **Total** | **£[total]** | | **Value for money:** [Cost per beneficiary. What could not be done without this grant] ### 8. Organisational Capacity [Track record of similar projects, governance, financial management. Name previous grants and outputs — be specific] ### 9. Risk Register | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | |---|---|---|---| | [Risk] | H/M/L | H/M/L | [Specific mitigation] | --- ## Quality Checks - [ ] Every section explicitly references funder stated priorities (not just generic language) - [ ] Problem statement includes specific data, not just assertions - [ ] Objectives are SMART (measurable and time-bound) - [ ] Budget narrative justifies every line with specific detail - [ ] Sustainability section explains what happens after the grant ends - [ ] Word limits respected ## Anti-Patterns - [ ] Do not write a generic proposal — every section must be tailored to the specific funder's stated priorities - [ ] Do not exceed the specified word or page limits — over-length proposals are disqualified at many funders - [ ] Do not leave the sustainability section vague — funders need to know what happens after grant funding ends - [ ] Do not use jargon the funder's reviewers won't understand — write for the panel, not the project team - [ ] Do not underspecify the budget narrative — every significant line item must be justified with method and reasoning ## Example Trigger Phrases - "Write a grant proposal for [project] applying to [funder]" - "Help me write a funding application for [grant programme]" - "Turn these project notes into a grant proposal: [paste]"
Conduct a structured ethical review of an AI or ML feature, model, or product. Use when preparing to deploy an AI system, assessing algorithmic risk, auditing a model for bias, or producing a responsible AI impact assessment. Produces a structured ethics review covering fairness, transparency, privacy, safety, accountability, and societal impact with a risk tier score, pre-deployment checklist, and prioritised mitigations.
Structure AI and ML product decisions with the rigour of any product decision. Use when building AI-powered features, evaluating LLM integrations, designing AI products, or assessing AI readiness. Produces a complete AI product canvas covering problem definition, model approach, data requirements, evaluation framework, UX design, responsible AI checklist, and launch monitoring plan.
Transform feature briefs into structured design briefs that give designers the context they need before opening Figma. Use when asked to write a design brief, create a design handoff, brief a designer on a new feature, or translate a PRD into design requirements. Produces a brief with user goal, emotional context, success criteria, constraints, edge cases, and out-of-scope boundaries.
Design statistically rigorous A/B tests and interpret experiment results. Use when asked to design an experiment, run an A/B test, calculate sample size, interpret test results, or assess whether an experiment was successful. Produces a complete experiment design with hypothesis, sample size, run time, success criteria, and risk flags — or a results interpretation with ship/iterate/kill recommendation.
Synthesises user signals from multiple research sources into a unified, weighted insight brief. Use when you have data from interviews, support tickets, NPS verbatims, app reviews, or sales calls and need to reconcile contradictions, surface the underlying need behind requests, or answer 'what are users really telling us'. Produces ranked insights with confidence ratings, source weighting rationale, divergent signal analysis by user segment, and a research gap identification section.
Structure a product data analysis, metric deep-dive, funnel analysis, or cohort study. Use when asked to analyse product metrics, investigate a drop in conversion, explain a data change to stakeholders, or find the root cause of a metric movement. Produces a structured analysis with question, root cause, confidence level, and recommended action.
Interpret product metrics against goals and surface actionable signals. Use when asked to analyse product health, review key metrics, investigate a performance issue, produce a health report, or assess product-market fit signals. Produces a structured health report with RAG status, trend analysis, root cause hypotheses, and prioritised actions.
Structure a retention analysis, churn investigation, or engagement deep-dive for any product team. Use when asked to analyse user retention, investigate churn, measure DAU/MAU, or build a retention improvement plan. Produces a retention snapshot with root cause hypotheses, aha-moment correlation, and prioritised interventions.