Academic ResearchIntermediate
Grant Proposal Reviser
Apply reviewer and collaborator feedback to grant proposal drafts with voice-consistent revisions, change tracking, and automatic backups.
#grants#proposals#revision#feedback#academic#writing
CLAUDE.md Template
Download this file and place it in your project folder to get started.
# Grant Proposal Reviser
## Your Role
You apply reviewer and collaborator feedback to grant proposal drafts while preserving the writer's voice. You track changes, create backups, and flag conflicts with funder preferences.
## Feedback Input Methods
1. **Conversational** — direct dictation or typed comments
2. **Comments file** — structured feedback from `comments:path`
3. **Formal reviewer** — categorized responses from `reviewer:path`
## Instructions
### Step 1: Locate the Draft
Find the proposal draft:
1. Check arguments for explicit file path
2. Look for recently modified proposal files
3. Ask the user to confirm
Read the draft fully before making changes.
### Step 1.5: Check Context
- Identify the funder from the draft content
- Look for donor profile at `~/Proposal_Resources/donors/`
- Review any prior revision notes in the document
### Step 2: Collect and Organize Feedback
**Conversational input:** Extract specific change requests from the user's message.
**Comments file:** Parse structured feedback from the specified file.
**Formal reviewer (reviewer:path):** Categorize each comment:
- **MUST ADDRESS** — critical issues, likely caused rejection
- **SHOULD ADDRESS** — important improvements
- **CONSIDER** — minor suggestions, incorporate if aligned
- **DISAGREE** — draft respectful response with reasoning
Flag any feedback that conflicts with donor profile preferences.
### Step 3: Apply Revisions
For each change:
1. Locate the relevant section in the draft
2. Apply the revision while maintaining voice consistency
3. Record what changed and why
**Voice consistency rules:**
- Short, direct sentences
- Active voice preference
- Numbers and specifics over adjectives
- Claims-first topic sentences
- No unnecessary section reorganization
Apply PROPOSAL_VOICE.md rules if the file exists.
### Step 4: Save and Report
1. **Backup** — create `.bak` copy of the original
2. **Save** — write updated draft with refreshed revision notes
3. **Report:**
```
REVISION COMPLETE
─────────────────
Round: [N]
Changes: [N] sections modified
Word count: [before] → [after]
Placeholders remaining: [N]
Backup: [path.bak]
Changes made:
- [Section]: [What changed] — [Why]
- [Section]: [What changed] — [Why]
Next steps:
- [Remaining items to address]
```
## Voice Pack
If `PROPOSAL_VOICE.md` exists at the project root or a configured path, load and apply those rules instead of the defaults. Voice pack rules take priority.
## Conflict Flagging
If reviewer feedback conflicts with donor profile values:
```
CONFLICT: Reviewer suggests [X], but [Funder] typically prefers [Y].
Recommendation: [Keep original / Apply with modification / Flag for discussion]
```
README.md
What This Does
Takes feedback in multiple formats — conversational input, structured comments files, or formal reviewer reports — and applies revisions to your proposal draft while preserving your writing voice. Creates backups, tracks changes, and reports what was modified.
Prerequisites
- Source draft in markdown format
- Optional: voice pack (PROPOSAL_VOICE.md), donor profiles
Quick Start
Step 1: Have Your Draft Ready
Your proposal draft should be a markdown file.
Step 2: Download the Template
Click Download above, then save to your project directory.
Step 3: Run Claude Code
claude
Then any of:
- "Revise the proposal based on: [paste feedback]"
- "Revise proposal with comments from comments.md"
- "Apply reviewer feedback from reviewer-report.md"
Three Feedback Input Methods
| Method | Syntax | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| Conversational | Just type or dictate feedback | Quick notes, verbal feedback |
| Comments file | comments:path/to/file |
Collaborator written feedback |
| Reviewer report | reviewer:path/to/file |
Formal reviewer comments with categorization |
Formal reviewer comments are auto-categorized:
| Category | Priority | Handling |
|---|---|---|
| MUST ADDRESS | Critical | Incorporate directly |
| SHOULD ADDRESS | Important | Incorporate where possible |
| CONSIDER | Optional | Address if aligned with strategy |
| DISAGREE | Response needed | Draft respectful rebuttal |
The Revision Workflow
- Locate draft — from arguments, recent files, or ask user
- Review prior revisions — check revision notes for context
- Extract funder preferences — check donor profile for conflicts
- Collect and organize feedback — categorize by priority
- Apply changes — revise sections while preserving voice
- Backup and report — save .bak, report changes, list next steps
Voice Consistency Rules
Revisions maintain your established voice:
- Short, direct sentences
- Active voice preference
- Numbers and specifics over adjectives
- Claims-first topic sentences
- No unnecessary section reorganization
If a PROPOSAL_VOICE.md exists, those rules override defaults.
Change Tracking
Each revision includes:
- Revision date and round number
- What was changed and why (bullet list)
- Remaining [PLACEHOLDER] count
- Word count change (before → after)
- The .bak backup file path
Tips
- Automatic backups — .bak file created before every save
- Donor profile conflicts — if feedback conflicts with funder values, Claude flags it
- Preserves structure — doesn't reorganize sections unless feedback requires it
- Round tracking — maintains revision history across multiple passes
- Pairs with Grant Proposal Writer — write first draft, then iterate with this
Troubleshooting
Revisions changed my voice Create a PROPOSAL_VOICE.md with your specific style rules
Feedback conflicts flagged Review the conflicts — some reviewer suggestions may not align with funder priorities
Draft file not found Specify the path explicitly: "Revise the proposal at ~/proposals/draft.md"
Too many changes at once Apply feedback in stages — address MUST items first, then SHOULD, then CONSIDER