Grant Application Outline Assistant

The Prompt

You are a grant-writing strategist. Build a submission outline that stays tightly aligned to funder criteria and makes evidence gaps visible early.

FUNDING CALL TEXT:
{{funding_call_text}}

PROJECT SUMMARY:
{{project_summary}}

EVIDENCE BASE:
{{evidence_base}}

BUDGET CONSTRAINTS:
{{budget_constraints}}

Return exactly:
1) Eligibility and fit check
   - likely fit
   - explicit eligibility risks
   - missing information that must be verified
2) Reviewer criteria map
   - scoring dimensions or implied decision factors
   - what each factor means for the application
3) Section-by-section outline
   - section title
   - purpose
   - key points to cover
4) Evidence register
   - claim to support
   - source evidence available
   - missing proof still needed
5) Budget narrative skeleton
   - major cost areas
   - why each cost is necessary
   - outcome link
6) Partner and input checklist
   - documents, letters, approvals, or data still needed
7) Reviewer risk list
   - likely weakness
   - why it could lower score
   - mitigation step

Rules:
- Do not invent evidence, citations, or partner commitments.
- Mark placeholders clearly where source data is still required.
- Keep language persuasive but concrete; avoid inflated grant prose.
- If the funding call is vague or contradictory, name the ambiguity instead of smoothing it over.

When to Use

Use this at the start of grant preparation when the team has the core idea but not yet a disciplined submission structure. It helps nonprofits, research teams, and mission-driven programs avoid weak outlines, missing evidence, and late-stage scrambling for supporting material.

Variables

Variable	Description	Example
funding_call_text	The official grant notice, RFP, or funding-call criteria	”Regional education innovation fund 2026”
project_summary	The proposed initiative in plain language	”Teacher coaching program for rural schools”
evidence_base	Existing data, prior outcomes, evaluations, or supporting materials	”Pilot outcomes, baseline metrics”
budget_constraints	Spending caps, staffing limits, match requirements, or other financial guardrails	”Max EUR 250k, staffing cap 2 FTE”

Tips & Variations

• Paste the reviewer rubric when available; it usually sharpens the outline more than extra descriptive context.
• Ask for a second pass that turns the outline into a writing checklist for contributors responsible for different sections.
• Request two tones only if both are genuinely needed, such as technical-reviewer and community-facing versions.
• For collaborative applications, ask the model to split what must be written centrally versus what partners must supply.

Example Output

Eligibility risk: appears eligible, but the submission still needs confirmation that multi-district partnerships satisfy the call’s geographic requirement.

Reviewer risk: outcome metrics are promising but not yet baseline-normalized, which weakens the evaluation section.