🎁 Get the FREE AI Skills Starter Guide β€” Subscribe β†’
BytesAgainBytesAgain
BytesAgain β€Ί Skills β€Ί Grant Mock Reviewer
πŸ¦€ ClawHub

Grant Mock Reviewer

by @aipoch-ai

Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers when user wants mock review, critique, or evaluation of a grant proposal before submiss...

Versionv0.1.0
Downloads320
#finance#legal#health#education#automation
TERMINAL
clawhub install grant-mock-reviewer

πŸ“– About This Skill

name: grant-mock-reviewer description: Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers when user wants mock review, critique, or evaluation of a grant proposal before submission. Generates structured critique using official NIH scoring rubric (1-9 scale), identifies weaknesses, provides actionable revision recommendations, and produces a comprehensive review summary similar to actual NIH Summary Statement. version: 1.0.0 category: Grant tags: [] author: AIPOCH license: MIT status: Draft risk_level: Medium skill_type: Tool/Script owner: AIPOCH reviewer: '' last_updated: '2026-02-06'

Grant Mock Reviewer

A simulated NIH study section reviewer that provides structured, rigorous critique of grant proposals using the official NIH scoring criteria and methodology.

Capabilities

1. NIH Scoring Rubric Application: Official 1-9 scale scoring across all 5 criteria 2. Weakness Identification: Systematic detection of common proposal flaws 3. Critique Generation: Structured written critiques for each review criterion 4. Summary Statement: Complete mock Summary Statement output 5. Revision Guidance: Prioritized, actionable recommendations for improvement

Usage

Command Line

# Full mock review with Summary Statement
python3 scripts/main.py --input proposal.pdf --format pdf --output review.md
Review Specific Aims only

python3 scripts/main.py --input aims.pdf --section aims --output aims_review.md
Targeted review (specific criterion focus)

python3 scripts/main.py --input proposal.pdf --focus approach --output approach_critique.md
Generate NIH-style scores only

python3 scripts/main.py --input proposal.pdf --scores-only --output scores.json
Compare before/after revision

python3 scripts/main.py --original original.pdf --revised revised.pdf --compare

As Library

from scripts.main import GrantMockReviewer
reviewer = GrantMockReviewer()
result = reviewer.review(
    proposal_text=proposal_content,
    grant_type="R01",
    section="full"
)
print(result.summary_statement)
print(result.scores)

Parameters

| Parameter | Type | Default | Required | Description | |-----------|------|---------|----------|-------------| | --input | string | - | Yes | Path to proposal file (PDF, DOCX, TXT, MD) | | --format | string | auto | No | Input file format (pdf, docx, txt, md) | | --section | string | full | No | Section to review (full, aims, significance, innovation, approach) | | --grant-type | string | R01 | No | Grant mechanism (R01, R21, R03, K99, F32) | | --focus | string | - | No | Focus on specific criterion (significance, investigator, innovation, approach, environment) | | --scores-only | flag | false | No | Output scores only (JSON) | | --output, -o | string | stdout | No | Output file path | | --original | string | - | No | Original proposal for comparison | | --revised | string | - | No | Revised proposal for comparison | | --compare | flag | false | No | Enable comparison mode |

NIH Scoring System

Overall Impact Score (1-9)

The single most important score reflecting the likelihood of the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field.

| Score | Descriptor | Likelihood of Funding | |-------|------------|----------------------| | 1 | Exceptional | Very High | | 2 | Outstanding | High | | 3 | Excellent | Good | | 4 | Very Good | Moderate | | 5 | Good | Low-Moderate | | 6 | Satisfactory | Low | | 7 | Fair | Very Low | | 8 | Marginal | Unlikely | | 9 | Poor | Not Fundable |

Individual Criteria (1-9 each)

1. Significance: Does the project address an important problem? Will scientific knowledge be advanced? 2. Investigator(s): Are the PIs well-suited? Adequate experience and training? 3. Innovation: Does it challenge current paradigms? Novel concepts, approaches, methods? 4. Approach: Sound research design? Appropriate methods? Adequate controls? Address pitfalls? 5. Environment: Adequate institutional support? Scientific environment conducive to success?

Score Interpretation

  • 1-3 (High Priority): Compelling, well-developed proposals with strong approach
  • 4-5 (Medium Priority): Good proposals with some weaknesses
  • 6-9 (Low Priority): Significant weaknesses that diminish enthusiasm

    • Review Output Format

    1. Score Summary

    Overall Impact: [Score] - [Descriptor]
    Criterion Scores:

  • Significance: [Score]
    • 

  • Investigator(s): [Score]
    • 

  • Innovation: [Score]
    • 

  • Approach: [Score]
    • 

  • Environment: [Score]
    •

    2. Strengths

    Bullet-point list of major strengths by criterion

    3. Weaknesses

    Bullet-point list of major weaknesses by criterion

    4. Detailed Critique

    Paragraph-form critique for each criterion following NIH style

    5. Summary Statement

    Complete narrative synthesis of the review

    6. Revision Recommendations

    Prioritized, actionable suggestions for improvement

    Common Weaknesses Detected

    Significance

  • Insufficient justification for the research problem
  • Incremental rather than transformative impact
  • Unclear connection to human health/disease
  • Overstatement of clinical significance without evidence

    • Investigator

  • Lack of relevant expertise for proposed aims
  • Insufficient track record in key methodologies
  • PI overcommitted (excessive effort on other grants)
  • Missing key collaborator expertise

    • Innovation

  • Straightforward extension of published work
  • Methods are standard rather than novel
  • No challenging of existing paradigms
  • Incremental rather than breakthrough potential

    • Approach

  • Aims too ambitious for timeframe
  • Insufficient preliminary data
  • Inadequate experimental controls
  • No discussion of pitfalls and alternatives
  • Statistical analysis plan missing or inadequate
  • Sample size/power calculations absent

    • Environment

  • Inadequate institutional resources
  • Missing core facility access
  • Lack of relevant equipment
  • Insufficient collaborative environment

    • Technical Difficulty

    High - Requires deep understanding of NIH peer review processes, ability to apply standardized scoring rubrics consistently, and generation of clinically/scientifically accurate critique across diverse research domains.

    Review Required: Human verification recommended before deployment in production settings.

    References

  • references/nih_scoring_rubric.md - Complete NIH scoring guidelines
  • references/review_criteria_explained.md - Detailed criterion descriptions
  • references/common_weaknesses_catalog.md - Database of typical proposal flaws
  • references/summary_statement_templates.md - NIH-style statement templates
  • references/score_calibration_guide.md - Score assignment guidelines

    • Best Practices for Users

    1. Provide Complete Proposals: The tool works best with full Research Strategy sections 2. Include Preliminary Data: Approach critique depends on feasibility evidence 3. Review Multiple Times: Use iteratively as you revise 4. Compare Versions: Track improvement between drafts 5. Consider Multiple Perspectives: Supplement with human reviewer feedback

    Limitations

    1. Cannot access external literature to verify claims 2. May not capture domain-specific methodological nuances 3. Scoring is simulated and may not match actual study section scores 4. Best used as preparatory tool, not replacement for human review

    Version

    1.0.0 - Initial release with NIH R01/R21/R03 support

    Risk Assessment

    | Risk Indicator | Assessment | Level | |----------------|------------|-------| | Code Execution | Python/R scripts executed locally | Medium | | Network Access | No external API calls | Low | | File System Access | Read input files, write output files | Medium | | Instruction Tampering | Standard prompt guidelines | Low | | Data Exposure | Output files saved to workspace | Low |

    Security Checklist

  • [ ] No hardcoded credentials or API keys
  • [ ] No unauthorized file system access (../)
  • [ ] Output does not expose sensitive information
  • [ ] Prompt injection protections in place
  • [ ] Input file paths validated (no ../ traversal)
  • [ ] Output directory restricted to workspace
  • [ ] Script execution in sandboxed environment
  • [ ] Error messages sanitized (no stack traces exposed)
  • [ ] Dependencies audited

    • Prerequisites

    # Python dependencies
pip install -r requirements.txt

    Evaluation Criteria

    Success Metrics

  • [ ] Successfully executes main functionality
  • [ ] Output meets quality standards
  • [ ] Handles edge cases gracefully
  • [ ] Performance is acceptable

    • Test Cases

    1. Basic Functionality: Standard input β†’ Expected output 2. Edge Case: Invalid input β†’ Graceful error handling 3. Performance: Large dataset β†’ Acceptable processing time

    Lifecycle Status

  • Current Stage: Draft
  • Next Review Date: 2026-03-06
  • Known Issues: None
  • Planned Improvements:
    • - Performance optimization - Additional feature support

    πŸ’‘ Examples

    Command Line

    # Full mock review with Summary Statement
python3 scripts/main.py --input proposal.pdf --format pdf --output review.md
    Review Specific Aims only
    
python3 scripts/main.py --input aims.pdf --section aims --output aims_review.md
    Targeted review (specific criterion focus)
    
python3 scripts/main.py --input proposal.pdf --focus approach --output approach_critique.md
    Generate NIH-style scores only
    
python3 scripts/main.py --input proposal.pdf --scores-only --output scores.json
    Compare before/after revision
    
python3 scripts/main.py --original original.pdf --revised revised.pdf --compare

    As Library

    from scripts.main import GrantMockReviewer
    reviewer = GrantMockReviewer()
result = reviewer.review(
    proposal_text=proposal_content,
    grant_type="R01",
    section="full"
)
print(result.summary_statement)
print(result.scores)

    βš™οΈ Configuration

    # Python dependencies
pip install -r requirements.txt