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. 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

CODEBLOCK0

As Library

CODEBLOCK1

Parameters

Parameter	Type	Default	Required	Description
INLINECODE0	string	-	Yes	Path to proposal file (PDF, DOCX, TXT, MD)
INLINECODE1

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. 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

CODEBLOCK2

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
• INLINECODE12 - Detailed criterion descriptions
• INLINECODE13 - Database of typical proposal flaws
• INLINECODE14 - NIH-style statement templates
• INLINECODE15 - Score assignment guidelines

Best Practices for Users

1. 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. 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

CODEBLOCK3

Evaluation Criteria

Success Metrics

• - [ ] Successfully executes main functionality
• [ ] Output meets quality standards
• [ ] Handles edge cases gracefully
• [ ] Performance is acceptable

Test Cases

1. 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