NSFC Grant Proposal Writer

Problem

Writing natural science fund proposals often breaks down on structural completeness, reference credibility, and format compliance: the rationale section can become a literature list, AI-generated references may be hallucinated, in-text citations may not match the reference list, and the final Word document may drift from template requirements. NSFC Grant Proposal Writer targets National, provincial, and municipal natural science fund applications by turning “scientific question—hypothesis—research content—foundation—route map—abstract—final document” into confirmable stages.

How It Works

It advances phase by phase, with a confirmation gate after each stage:

• Phase 0–1: captures fund level, application code, research direction, applicant background, then distills the scientific question and builds a hypothesis.
• Phase 2–5: covers the required sections and subsections, drafting rationale, research content and methods, foundation, feasibility, annual plan, budget, and references.
• Phase 6–8: generates PPTX, SVG, and HTML route maps, refines the 400-word abstract, runs format checks, and exports the Word document.
• Phase 9: simulates reviews from domain, methodology, statistics, junior, and interdisciplinary perspectives, then ranks objections and revisions.

Reference handling is central: user-provided references are prioritized, AI-added references must be verified via PubMed, WOS, or Scopus, and in-text citations must match the reference list one-to-one.

Boundaries

It is best for researchers with a clear direction, prior results, or a draft; if only keywords are provided, the skill collects missing inputs and depends on user confirmation and uploaded materials. It does not replace scientific judgment—hypothesis novelty, experimental design, and budget reasonability remain the applicant’s responsibility. Reference verification checks public-database availability, so borderline references still need manual review.