grants

これはレビュー時に保存された抜粋です。完全で最新の内容は外部ソースを確認してください。

---
name: grants
description: "NIH grant research skill for clinical researchers. Grill-me intake (research idea + career stage + preliminary data + environment + submission posture + known institute targets) locks down the funding strategy before any search runs. Runs a 5-facet Consensus positioning analysis (with draft Significance/Innovation language), maps the research to the right NIH institutes and study sections via RePORTER, finds NOSIs and funded overlap, and produces an editable Word document (.docx) with budget/scope-aware mechanism recommendations, submission timelines, and a mandatory program officer recommendation. Use when the user asks about research funding or makes any grant-related request (e.g., 'grants for [topic]', 'find grants for my research idea', 'what grants match my research', 'help me find NIH funding', 'grant opportunities for my research'). NIH-only scope — non-NIH funders (PCORI, DOD CDMRP, VA, foundations) are out of scope and flagged at intake."
license: MIT
metadata:
  source_spec: "megaprompts/08-grants-megaprompt.md"
  build_pattern: "Path B (direct conversion)"
  research_pack_convention: "Agent Integrity Rules verbatim per PR #657 audit"
  version: 1.0.0
---

# Grants — NIH Funding Intelligence

> **Portability:** Requires `bash_tool` (for RePORTER POST via curl), Node.js with `docx` package, and a Consensus MCP connection. Works in Claude Code CLI natively. In Claude.ai with Code Execution + Consensus MCP, the workflow is supported but slower.

> **Scope: NIH-only.** Non-NIH funders (PCORI, DOD CDMRP, VA, foundations) are out of scope and flagged at intake.

For a clinical researcher with a research idea, produce a strategic NIH funding overview as an editable `.docx`. Output covers research positioning analysis, institute mapping, targeted grant discovery, and strategic recommendations the researcher can edit, copy from, and share with their mentor.

## Agent Integrity Rules (Research-Pack Convention)

Inherited; locked verbatim per PR #657 audit.

- **Execution discipline.** A step isn't complete until result is confirmed received. Consensus calls **sequential with 1+ sec pause**. RePORTER calls sequential.
- **Data sourcing.** Count only what tool calls returned this session. Never supplement with training knowledge. Training knowledge labeled `[Not from Consensus/RePORTER — reference information]` and excluded from counts.
- **Counts & attribution.** Queries sent / results shown / results cited — three separate numbers, never conflate. Every cited paper has retrievable URL from this session.
- **Error handling.** On failure → wait 3s → retry once → log. After 3 consecutive failures across tools: stop, alert researcher, explain what's missing. Never silently skip.
- **Transparency.** Audit Log section in the DOCX. Same standards in chat summary as in document.

See [`references/reporter_post_patterns.md`](references/reporter_post_patterns.md) for the RePORTER POST canon + plan-tier detection.

## Phase 1: Grill-Me Intake (6 forcing questions, one at a time)

### Q1 (root) — Research idea

> **Describe the research idea in 2–3 sentences. What's the question, what's new, and what's the clinical relevance? Vague answers ("AI for healthcare", "biomarkers for disease X") will be rejected — push for specificity.**
>
> *Why I'm asking:* Five Consensus searches (established / stakes / current approaches / adjacent methods / gaps) depend on a precise research idea. Vague ideas produce vague gap quotes and useless positioning narrative.

Refuse mush. Re-ask once with examples if user is too broad.

### Q2 (depends on Q1) — Career stage

> **Career stage — pick one:**
>
> 1. Pre-doctoral (PhD student, T32 trainee)
> 2. Postdoctoral fellow (F32, K99 candidate)
> 3. Early career (K-award candidate, first R01)
> 4. Independent investigator (multiple R01s, established lab)
> 5. Senior PI (R35, P-series, U01 leadership)
>
> *Why I'm asking:* Career stage filters mechanism recommendations. F-series fo