Grant Proposal Review

Routes a grant proposal to an independent, fresh-context reviewer that scores it against the official NIH or NSF criteria and returns a structured review. This skill is a thin dispatcher: it decides how to run the reviewer and in which mode. The review procedure, criteria, scoring rubrics, and output templates all live in references/ and are loaded by the reviewer, not duplicated here.

When to use

Activate when the user wants feedback on a grant proposal (specific aims, research strategy, project description) evaluated against NIH or NSF review criteria.

Why a fresh-context reviewer

Review validity depends on independence: a reviewer that shares the conversation that produced the proposal is biased toward it. Run the reviewer in a separate context and pass only framing (proposal path, mechanism/agency, resubmission status, target program), never the authoring rationale. This is also why the reviewer is a subagent on tools that support one, and an inline procedure where they do not.

Modes (user decides each run)

• Single (default): one independent reviewer applies the full procedure end to end.
• Panel (opt-in): spawn N independent reviewers in parallel, then a synthesis pass. Trigger on "mock study section", "panel review", or an explicit request for multiple reviewers. NIH: 3 reviewers; NSF: 2-3 panelists. Each reviewer scores independently from references/; a final chair pass reconciles them into one output. Surface genuine disagreement rather than blindly averaging scores.

Dispatch