name: research-proposal-development
description: Develop research proposals with solicitation alignment, reviewer-focused logic, evidence-bounded preliminary results, milestones, risks, and compelling figures. Use for federal, foundation, equipment, partnership, or internal research proposals.
Research Proposal Development
Purpose
Turn an important research question into a reviewer-decision-ready proposal. Preserve the investigator's scientific direction and distinguish verified preliminary evidence, proposed work, assumptions, and collaborator-dependent commitments.
Route To Reference
Read references/proposal-development.md before drafting a full narrative, responding to review criteria, planning proposal figures, integrating preliminary results, or polishing a submission.
Workflow
- Extract the solicitation's scope, eligibility, deadline, budget and duration constraints, required sections, evaluation criteria, and special requirements from primary sources.
- Frame the need: high-value application or scientific barrier, current state, precise gap, reason it endures, and the proposed solution's testable advance.
- Map every aim or thrust to a hypothesis, method, measurable success criterion, risk, mitigation, deliverable, and reviewer criterion.
- Use preliminary results as evidence of feasibility, not proof of promised outcomes. Label planned partnerships, facilities, datasets, and external commitments unless confirmed.
- Make the figure plan do work: system concept, evidence of feasibility, causal mechanism, work plan, and quantitative success metrics.
Writing Rules
Each paragraph should answer one reviewer question. Avoid generic impact claims, unexplained work packages, and a list of tasks that does not produce knowledge. Explain why the team, methodology, and timeline make the proposed advance credible.
Final Review
Check factual solicitation alignment, budget/timeline consistency, references, labels on preliminary versus proposed material, and all claimed collaborator, institutional, or facility commitments. Flag requirements that require institutional review rather than inventing compliance language.