Pre-Award Compliance Verifier
Systematically verify grant proposals against federal, institutional, and funder compliance rules
What You Can Do
Systematically verify that grant proposals meet all applicable federal regulations (NSF, NIH, DoD, etc.), institutional policies, and funder-specific requirements before submission. The skill analyzes proposal documents against compliance checklists, identifies gaps or conflicts, and provides actionable remediation steps. This prevents costly rejections and submission delays caused by compliance oversights.
Features
Checks proposals against common federal funder rules (NSF, NIH, DoD, DOE, USDA) including eligibility criteria, budget limits, cost-sharing mandates, and indirect cost caps.
Verifies compliance with your institution's pre-award policies, signing authority levels, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and required internal approvals.
Analyzes proposal details against funder-specific requirements for formats, page limits, biographical sketches, data management plans, and publication policies.
Identifies missing compliance elements (approvals, certifications, disclosures, documentation) and provides step-by-step remediation with owner assignments.
Generates clear compliance summaries organized by federal, institutional, and funder-specific requirements with risk levels and priority flags.
Validates budget justifications against funder limits, ensures institutional cost-sharing commitments are documented, and flags unsupported expenses.
Checks submission deadlines, required approval timelines, and institutional review schedules against proposal milestones.
Example Output
Compliance Verification Report: NSF SBIR Phase II
Overall Status: ⚠️ 3 Critical Issues, 2 Warnings
Federal Requirements (NSF)
- ✅ Eligibility: Small business status confirmed
- ⚠️ Budget concern: Proposed $750K at NSF limit — no contingency buffer
- ✅ Indirect cost: 22% (within federally negotiated cap)
Institutional Requirements
- ✅ Conflict-of-interest disclosures: All PIs completed
- ❌ Missing: Research integrity approval required before submission (2-3 days)
- ✅ Cost-share: 10% institutional match documented
Funder-Specific (NSF SBIR)
- ✅ Project narrative: 15 pages (within 20-page limit)
- ⚠️ Data plan gap: No DOI strategy specified — NSF expects data sharing
- ❌ Format error: Co-PI biographical sketch uses CV format; NSF requires 2-page template
Remediation Checklist:
- Submit research integrity form to compliance office (Owner: Admin, 3 days)
- Reformat co-PI sketch using NSF template (Owner: Co-PI, 1 day)
- Add data sharing and DOI commitment to narrative (Owner: PI, 2 days)
What's Included
- Federal Compliance Checker: Pre-built rules for NSF, NIH, DoD, DOE, USDA covering eligibility, budget caps, cost-sharing, and indirect cost policies.
- Institutional Policy Database: Customizable templates for your institution's pre-award policies, signing authority matrices, and required approvals.
- Funder-Specific Rule Repository: Downloadable requirement checklists for 50+ federal and foundation funders across all NIH institutes, NSF directorates, and major private foundations.
- Compliance Report Template: Structured markdown template for generating actionable compliance summaries organized by requirement level with risk prioritization.
- Gap Remediation Workflow: Step-by-step guidance for resolving identified compliance gaps with owner assignment, time estimates, and required resources.
- Budget Audit Checklist: Validation rules for budget justification, cost-sharing documentation, allowable expenses, and funder-specific budget limitations.
Who It's For
- Grants Administrators & Pre-Award Specialists
- Research Coordinators & Project Managers
- Faculty Researchers & Project PIs
- University Compliance Officers
- Sponsored Programs & Grants Offices
Best For
- Pre-submission compliance audits for federal grant proposals
- Institutional policy compliance verification before routing
- Gap analysis and remediation planning
- Budget and cost-sharing validation
- Multi-funder requirement comparison and selection
You might also like
Streamline your systematic reviews by using Claude to screen abstracts against inclusion criteria, extract structured data from full texts, and synthesize findings across studies. Reduce manual screening time by 60-80% while maintaining rigorous documentation of your review methodology. Claude becomes your collaborative partner throughout the entire evidence synthesis workflow, from protocol planning to final data synthesis.
This skill guides you through systematic reference interviews that uncover patron information needs and develop evidence-based search strategies. You'll learn to ask targeted clarifying questions, assess information-seeking behaviors, and generate tailored resource recommendations. The result: more satisfied patrons, more efficient research outcomes, and consistent, high-quality reference services.
This skill audits research manuscripts and author workflows against open access funder mandates (NIH, NSF, European Commission) and institutional policies. It validates licensing terms, repository suitability, and compliance timelines, then generates detailed remediation guidance to help researchers meet funder requirements and institutional standards.
You systematically verify OSINT source credibility by identifying when secondary sources echo unverified claims, detecting coordinated information laundering across multiple outlets, and establishing audit trails for source evaluation decisions. The framework enables you to generate confidence levels defensible in intelligence briefings, recognize attribution spoofing, and distinguish genuine primary sources from recycled or manipulated information—critical for assessments that inform operational decisions.
You can streamline the entire editorial process by automating peer review coordination, synthesizing reviewer feedback into coherent editorial decisions, and generating professional correspondence at scale. The skill helps you manage manuscript timelines, track reviewer assignments, and produce consistent decision documents that maintain your journal's professional standards while saving hours of editorial work.
This skill provides a comprehensive framework for conducting structured peer reviews that balance technical rigor with constructive feedback. It systematically evaluates code quality, architecture decisions, testing, security, and documentation while delivering specific, prioritized recommendations. You'll ensure consistent, professional review standards across your team and help developers grow through clear, actionable guidance.
This skill analyzes grant requirements, interprets funder regulations, and coordinates compliance workflows for research institutions. You'll receive structured compliance guidance, multi-funder requirement synthesis, deadline tracking, and risk assessments that help you navigate complex sponsored research administration with confidence.
This skill systematically reviews your research proposal against funder requirements, institutional policies, and compliance checkpoints to identify issues before submission. It validates proposal structure, budget justifications, and timelines while flagging common violations that could trigger desk rejections or revision requests. You'll receive a detailed compliance report with specific issues, severity levels, and actionable remediation steps for each funder type.