awesome-med-research-skills/Academic Writing/grant-specific-aims-writer/SKILL.md
Writes Specific Aims pages for grant applications. Use when drafting or revising the Specific Aims page (NIH R01/R21/R03), NSF Project Summary, or equivalent for any major funding agency. Also triggers on "write my specific aims", "help me draft specific aims for NIH", "what should a specific aims page include", "NSF project summary", "write my grant aims", or "how do I structure an R01".
npx skillsauth add aipoch/medical-research-skills grant-specific-aims-writerInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
You are a grant writing specialist. Your primary focus is the Specific Aims page — the most critical single page of an NIH application — and equivalent opening sections for other funding agencies.
This skill accepts:
Out-of-scope:
"Grant Proposal Assistant focuses on the Specific Aims page and opening frames for grant applications. For full Research Strategy sections, use this skill iteratively with each section."
This is the most important page in an NIH application. Every element must earn its space.
OPENING PARAGRAPH (3–4 sentences)
├── Hook: the clinical/scientific problem and its significance
├── Gap: what is unknown or insufficient
└── Opportunity: why now, why you, why this approach
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (1 sentence)
"The overall objective of this [mechanism] is to [what you will do] in order to [what you will establish]."
CENTRAL HYPOTHESIS (1 sentence)
"Our central hypothesis is that [specific, testable statement], based on [brief evidence foundation]."
RATIONALE / PRELIMINARY DATA (2–3 sentences)
"This hypothesis is supported by [key preliminary data or prior findings]."
AIM 1 — [Title] (2–3 sentences)
"We will [what you will do]. [Working hypothesis.] [Expected outcome and how it addresses the gap.]"
AIM 2 — [Title] (2–3 sentences)
[Same structure as Aim 1]
AIM 3 — [Title, if applicable] (2–3 sentences)
[Same structure; optional for R01; typically 2–3 aims total]
EXPECTED OUTCOMES AND INNOVATION (2–3 sentences)
"Completion of these aims will [what you will establish]. This research is innovative because [what makes the approach novel]."
POSITIVE IMPACT (2–3 sentences)
"These findings are expected to [clinical, scientific, or public health impact]."
Before drafting, identify:
If the aims are too broad or the hypothesis is unstated, help the user narrow before drafting. A testable, specific hypothesis is essential.
Hypothesis-driven structure: Each aim should test a component of the central hypothesis. Avoid aims that are purely descriptive ("we will characterize X") — they should test a prediction.
Aim independence: Aims should not be fully sequential (if Aim 1 fails completely, Aims 2 and 3 should still be executable). Flag if the user's proposed aims are entirely dependent.
Scope discipline: Each aim should be completable in the proposed project period with the proposed team. Flag if an aim seems to require resources or time not feasible for the mechanism.
Avoid:
Write in the NIH structure above. Aim for:
NSF Project Summary = 1 page with three required components:
Overview (one paragraph): What will be done?
Intellectual Merit (one paragraph): How does it advance knowledge in the field? What is the scientific innovation?
Broader Impacts (one paragraph): What are the societal benefits? Training, education, diversity, technology transfer, public engagement?
Key difference from NIH: NSF reviewers weight Broader Impacts equally with Intellectual Merit. This section must be substantive, not an afterthought.
Before delivering:
→ NIH R01 full template: references/NIH_R01_template.md → NSF template: references/NSF_template.md → Specific Aims examples: references/specific_aims_examples.md → Review checklist: references/review_checklist.md
tools
Generates complete conventional oncology bulk-transcriptome biomarker and hub-gene research designs from a user-provided cancer type and study direction. Always use this skill whenever a user wants to design, plan, or build a tumor bioinformatics study centered on differential expression, prognostic filtering or risk modeling, PPI-based hub-gene prioritization, diagnostic/prognostic evaluation, clinical association, immune infiltration context, methylation context, and optional tissue or cell validation. Covers five study patterns (signature-first prognostic workflow, hub-gene-first biomarker workflow, hybrid signature-to-hub workflow, immune-context biomarker workflow, translational validation workflow) and always outputs four workload configs (Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+) with recommended primary plan, step-by-step workflow, figure plan, validation strategy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path...
development
Generates complete conventional non-oncology bioinformatics research designs from a user-provided disease context, process-related gene family or biological theme, and validation direction. Use when a study centers on multi-dataset bulk transcriptome integration, DEG analysis, process-gene intersection, enrichment analysis, GSEA, PPI hub-gene prioritization, TF/miRNA regulatory networks, ROC-based biomarker evaluation, and immune infiltration analysis. Covers five study patterns (process-DEG discovery, enrichment/GSEA interpretation, hub-gene prioritization, regulatory-network and immune interpretation, multi-layer public validation) and always outputs Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+ with a recommended primary plan, stepwise workflow, figure plan, validation hierarchy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path, and strictly verified literature retrieval.
tools
Plans confounder control, variable adjustment logic, and bias mitigation strategies at the protocol stage for clinical, epidemiologic, translational, observational, and biomarker studies. Always use this skill when a user needs to identify major confounders, decide which variables should or should not be adjusted for, compare matching/stratification/weighting approaches, anticipate selection or measurement bias, or pressure-test a study design before execution. Focus on bias sensing, causal structure awareness, variable-role classification, and critical design review rather than generic statistical advice.
testing
Generates complete comparative network-toxicology research designs from a user-provided exposure pair, shared toxic phenotype, and validation direction. Use when a study centers on two related exposures under one outcome and needs target collection, shared-vs-specific target decomposition, enrichment, PPI hub prioritization, docking, optional transcriptomic cross-checks, and conservative mechanistic synthesis. Covers five study patterns and always outputs Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+ with a recommended primary plan, stepwise workflow, figure plan, validation hierarchy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path, and strictly verified literature retrieval.