Grant Evidence Gap Reviewer

The problem

Grant writers often submit applications with unsupported narrative claims, missing attachments, or budget mismatches that lead to immediate rejection. Manually cross-referencing funder rubrics against draft materials is slow and prone to oversight.

What it does

• Analyzes draft narratives against funder criteria to find unsupported claims.
• Maps budgets to narratives to catch unfunded activities or missing justifications.
• Identifies missing required attachments, letters of support, and eligibility proof.
• Generates a criteria-to-evidence matrix and an evidence gap register.
• Drafts likely reviewer questions and human validation scenarios to stress-test the application.

Why this beats prompting it yourself

This skill enforces a strict evidence boundary, preventing the model from hallucinating or assuming data exists. It uses a structured 11-step audit workflow that ensures no eligibility rule or budget line is ignored, providing a level of rigor difficult to maintain with one-off prompts.

Use cases

• Reviewing nonprofit foundation applications for narrative-budget alignment.
• Auditing research grant packs for collaborator commitment and institutional proof.
• Performing gap analysis on community or education funding drafts.
• Preparing for reviewer Q&A by identifying weak spots in impact evidence.

Known limitations

Cannot access live funder portals, institutional finance systems, or external donor registries. It does not write the full proposal or guarantee funding success.