Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills --skill grant-proposalgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/grant-proposal)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/grant-proposal"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/grant-proposal/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/grant-proposal"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/grant-proposal.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.02120 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01060 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00424 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00212 |
Grade A, and why
grant-proposal scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 11d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 173 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Grant Proposal
A grant proposal is simultaneously a scientific document, a persuasive argument, and a strategic communication with a specific review panel. Understanding the funding body's values and review criteria is as important as the science itself.
Grant Types Comparison
| Funder | Key Grant Types | Review Criteria | Word/Page Limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| NIH (US) | R01, R21, R03, K awards, F awards | Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, Environment (scored 1–9) | 12 pages (R01 Research Strategy) |
| NSF (US) | Standard, CAREER, collaborative | Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts (equal weight) | 15 pages (Project Description) |
| EU Horizon Europe | ERC Starting/Consolidator/Advanced, MSCA, collaborative | Excellence, Impact, Implementation | Varies by scheme (15–50 pages) |
| Wellcome Trust (UK) | Discovery Research, Investigator Awards | Scientific quality, career stage, team, environment | Varies by scheme |
| ERC | StG, CoG, AdG, PoC, Synergy | Scientific excellence only (no socioeconomic impact required) | 15 pages (B2 section) |
| UKRI / MRC / BBSRC | Standard research grants, fellowships | Timeliness, quality, team, value for money | Typically 6–8 pages |
Anatomy of a Grant Proposal
Universal Sections (Most Funders)
| Section | Purpose | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Abstract / Project Summary | 1-page standalone overview | Write last; must work independently |
| Specific Aims / Objectives | What you will do and why | The make-or-break page (NIH) |
| Background / Significance | Why this problem matters | Gap → impact → your solution |
| Innovation | What is genuinely new | Must be scientifically novel, not incremental |
| Approach / Methods | How you will do it | Feasibility + rigor + contingency plans |
| Budget Justification | Why each cost is necessary | Every line must be justified |
| Biosketches / CVs | Team credentials | Highlight relevant expertise and track record |
| Facilities & Resources | What environment you have | Demonstrates feasibility |
| References | Literature cited | Keep focused; reviewers notice padding |
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 11d ago First seen · 173 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A b558b95c18b6
grant-proposal is a skill published in the GitHub repository muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills (6 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,120 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
thesis-control
Use when AI-assisted thesis or manuscript edits risk claim drift, scope creep, loss of intended use, experiment-role promotion, or repeated revisions that fail to converge; provides author-intent control, lightweight or strict contracts, drift audits, revision escalation, and human gates.
manuscript-reframe
Reframe report-like academic drafts into paper-form scientific arguments while preserving or explicitly renegotiating author intent; requires an approved old-versus-proposed spine, evidence and argument baselines, analysis-role control, and post-edit drift review.
argument-governance
Build and audit the manuscript or research-project argument system across intended use, gaps, claims, data, results, experiment roles, contributions, innovation evidence, limitations, and contribution focus. Use when a paper, thesis chapter, review article, or research project needs an explicit argument map…
audit
Check thesis chapters for consistency before submission — contradictory numbers, terminology drift, and broken cross-references.
self-review
Review the user's own manuscript, paper, thesis chapter, rebuttal, or release packet with clean-room anti-contamination controls and, when needed, an unfamiliar-reader comprehension gate. Use for internal review, readiness checks, reviewer simulation, or claim-evidence self-audit where prior chat memory and unstated…
evidence-review
Build evidence-controlled literature reviews and gap maps with source-status labels, claim registers, citation-role plans, traceability tables, and overclaim audits. Use when drafting or auditing review papers, thesis literature reviews, scoping reviews, or evidence syntheses where adjacent-domain evidence, candidate…