Pre-Award Proposal Compliance & Quality Assurance
Compliance-check NSF and NIH proposals before submission
What You Can Do
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.
Features
Checks your proposal against specific requirements from NSF, NIH, DOE, and other federal sponsors. Validates page limits, formatting, required sections, and funder-specific guidelines.
Ensures your proposal meets your institution's internal policies for cost-sharing, indirect costs, conflict of interest disclosure, and approval workflows.
Generates a checklist of all compliance items specific to your funder and institution. Tracks completion status and highlights incomplete items requiring attention.
Identifies common submission mistakes that trigger desk rejections or revision requests, such as missing budget justifications, unclear timelines, or policy violations.
Validates that personnel costs, equipment purchases, travel, and indirect costs are properly justified and comply with funder cost-sharing and allowability rules.
Prioritizes findings by severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low) so you focus on blocking issues first before minor formatting corrections.
Reviews the same proposal against multiple funder requirements simultaneously, highlighting where policies conflict and which funder has the strictest rules.
Provides specific, actionable fix recommendations for each flagged issue, including example text or budget recalculations where applicable.
Example Output
NSF CAREER Award Proposal - Compliance Report
- ✅ Critical Issues: 0
- ⚠️ High Priority: 2
- 📋 Medium Priority: 5
High Priority Issues:
- Missing Broader Impacts Statement: NSF CAREER awards require dedicated broader impacts narrative. Your proposal currently has no separate section. Recommendation: Add 1-2 page section describing education, outreach, and societal impact.
- Budget Justification Incomplete: Personnel costs lack hourly rates for graduate students. NSF guidelines require explicit calculations. Recommendation: Add "Graduate students at $XX/hour × YY hours = $ZZ"
Medium Priority Issues:
- Project Timeline: Milestone for "System implementation" lacks specific deliverables. Break into concrete checkpoints (e.g., "Complete API v1.0 by Month 6")
- References formatting: 3 references use non-standard citation format. NSF prefers author-date style.
- Biographical Sketch: One Co-Investigator entry is 2.5 pages (NSF limit is 2 pages).
Institution Policy Check:
- ✅ Passes your institution's 15% cost-sharing requirement (proposal specifies 16% university contribution)
- ✅ All Co-Investigators have completed conflict-of-interest disclosure
What's Included
- Compliance Validation Workflow: Step-by-step process to review your proposal against a comprehensive compliance matrix covering funder rules, policies, and best practices.
- Pre-Built Funder Templates: Ready-made compliance checklists and requirement matrices for NSF, NIH, DOE, USDA, and other common federal sponsors. Easily customizable for your institution.
- Institutional Policy Integration: Framework to input your university's cost-sharing policies, indirect cost rates, approval workflows, and compliance requirements. Reusable across proposals.
- Automated Red-Flag Detection: Patterns and checks that flag common proposal mistakes (missing sections, budget inconsistencies, unrealistic timelines) before human review.
- Severity-Ranked Issue Triage: Issues categorized by impact: Critical (blocks submission), High (likely revision requests), Medium (best practice), Low (cosmetic). Focus your effort accordingly.
- Detailed Remediation Guidance: Specific fix recommendations for each issue, including example language, budget recalculation templates, and funder-specific best practices.
Who It's For
- Faculty and Principal Investigators
- Research Administrators and Grants Managers
- Institutional Compliance Officers
- Department Research Support Staff
Best For
- NSF proposal preparation and compliance checks
- NIH grant applications and budget justification review
- DOE, USDA, and multi-agency federal funding submissions
- Pre-submission institutional compliance audits
- Multi-institutional collaborative proposals
You might also like
You can rapidly analyze multiple research papers, extract quality metrics using evidence hierarchy frameworks, and generate structured literature syntheses. Claude evaluates study design, sample sizes, bias risk, and statistical significance to produce clinically actionable summaries that support evidence-based decision-making for healthcare providers and researchers.
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.
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.
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 guides you through a comprehensive peer review process using structured assessment templates, detailed evaluation rubrics, and evidence-based feedback frameworks. You'll generate detailed, constructive reviews that identify both strengths and weaknesses, provide actionable recommendations, and produce consistent evaluations suitable for academic journals, grant agencies, or conference committees.
You can structure research consultations with patrons using a proven framework that covers research scope, information needs, and discovery strategies. The skill evaluates source credibility using academic standards—peer review status, author authority, publication context, and currency—helping you make informed source selections with your patrons. You can also guide literature discovery across multiple academic databases and disciplines, recommend strategic search approaches, and help patrons develop comprehensive research plans from initial question to final bibliography.
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.