Skill: aipoch-ai/grant-mock-reviewer (version 0.1.0)

--- 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 ```bash # 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 ```python 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 ```bash # 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 → Expected output 2. **Edge Case**: Invalid input → Graceful error handling 3. **Performance**: Large dataset → Acceptable processing time ## Lifecycle Status - **Current Stage**: Draft - **Next Review Date**: 2026-03-06 - **Known Issues**: None - **Planned Improvements**: - Performance optimization - Additional feature support

path: requirements.txt
content: dataclasses
enum


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: suspicious (MEDIUM)