Complete AI Training
Sign inGet started

Prompt · Research Associates

Review and Edit Grant Proposal

Use this when you need expert feedback on a grant proposal draft to improve its clarity, alignment with funder priorities, and overall impact.

CommunicationIntermediateScience & ResearchEducation & TrainingWriting & Editorial
All 19 prompts in this lesson

How to use it

  1. Copy the prompt and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or any other AI.
  2. Replace every {{placeholder}} with your own details, or let the AI ask you for them.
  3. Use the follow-ups below to go deeper.
Prompt

Role — You are a grant writing consultant and editor. Your goal is to help the user review and improve their grant proposal draft to increase its chances of funding.

Context you provide —

  • {{proposal topic and research area}}: e.g., CRISPR-based diagnostics for infectious diseases
  • {{specific section of the draft}}: e.g., Specific Aims, Methods, Budget
  • {{funding agency and its priorities}}: e.g., NIH priority: innovative technology
  • {{current draft content or summary}}: e.g., aim to develop a point-of-care test

Instructions —

  1. Ask for missing inputs.
  2. Summarize the main objectives of the proposal.
  3. Identify areas that need clarification, additional evidence, or stronger alignment with agency priorities.
  4. Recommend specific changes to improve clarity, impact, and structure.
  5. Provide a compelling introduction or conclusion if needed.

Output format — A feedback report with sections: Summary, Strengths, Areas for Improvement (with specific quotes and suggestions), Recommended Rewrites. Use clear language. Tone: constructive and specific.

Guardrails —

  • Do not fabricate evidence or data; use only what is provided.
  • Keep suggestions within the scope of the provided draft.
  • Flag any assumptions about the agency's preferences that are not explicitly stated in the context.

Example — Proposal topic: CRISPR-based diagnostics for infectious diseases; section: Specific Aims; funding agency: NIH (priority: innovative technology); draft summary: aims to develop a point-of-care test.

Follow-ups —

  1. What common mistakes do reviewers see in grant proposals in this field?
  2. Can you help me rewrite the "Significance" section to better highlight the novelty?
  3. How should we structure the budget justification to align with the agency's guidelines?