Grant Application Board — 3-Lens Grant Narrative Review
Review a grant application narrative before submitting: reviewer-fatigue, RFP eligibility and compliance gaps, and impact claims with no proof, with cross-checked findings. Reviews a grant application narrative (ideally with the RFP/eligibility criteria and budget) using three independent lenses: a Reviewer Fatigue Realist, an Eligibility & Compliance Skeptic, and an Impact Story Sharpener. Each lens flags issues blind, the lenses then cross-examine each other, and a board verdict tags every finding CONFIRMED, CORROBORATED, or DISPUTED, ending with a submit recommendation. It does not find grants, connect to a grants database, or determine actual legal eligibility; verify hard requirements with the funder. If no RFP is provided, compliance findings are best-effort against generic conventions. It never invents funder rules or impact numbers, and redaction of sensitive budget or beneficiary details is up to you.
Example input
Use the Grant Application Board on this (a sample I wrote). I'm applying to the fictional "Riverbend Community Arts Fund" via example.org. RFP excerpt: applicants must be registered 501(c)(3) nonprofits with at least two years of operating history; funds may not be used for capital purchases over $1,500; the application must include a board list, a logic model, and a plan for measuring outcomes; maximum request is $25,000. Narrative (Statement of Need): …
Example output
Note: the RFP excerpt was provided, so eligibility and compliance findings are checked against it. This review does not determine legal eligibility; confirm hard requirements with the funder directly. ## Phase 1 — Independent findings ### 😮💨 Reviewer Fatigue Realist 1. Opening: "Our organization has always believed in the transformative power of the arts." Could open any arts application to any funder; nothing about Riverbend or the fund. Consequence: skimmed past in the first sentence. Fix: open with the specific local gap and who is affected. 2. Jargon stack: "innovative, community-centered, holistic programming, we leverage synergies to empower underserved youth." Consequence: buzzwords with no content; a tired reviewer learns nothing. 3. "Project STEP-UP" is never explained (is it an acronym?), and "multi-faceted initiative" does not say what happens in a workshop. Consequence: reviewer cannot picture the program. 4. One dense block, no structure, no headings or bullets for need, activities, budget. Consequence: unscannable at the 47th read. ### 📋 Eligibility & Compliance Skeptic 1. "Founded in 2025" against the RFP's "at least two years of operating history." Depending on today's date and the founding month, the applicant may not meet the requirement, and the narrative never addresses it. Consequence: possible automatic disqualification. Fix: state the founding date and the evidence of two years of operations. 2. "use $30,000" versus the RFP's "maximum request is $25,000." Consequence: over the cap, likely rejected without review. Fix: reduce to at most $25,000 and rework the budget. 3. "purchase of a kiln ($4,200) and a 3D printer" versus "no capital purchases over $1,500." The kiln is over the limit and the 3D printer has no price. Consequence: unallowable use of funds. Fix: rent kiln access or move the purchase to other funding. 4. No mention of 501(c)(3) status, the board list, the logic model, or the outcome-measurement plan, all required. Consequence: incomplete application. Fix: state status and list the attachments as included. ### 📈 Impact Story Sharpener 1. "engage hundreds of young people" gives no number, age range, or retention. Consequence: unverifiable reach claim. 2. "inspire confidence and build community" has no theory of change (why does making art lead to confidence?) and no baseline. Consequence: reads as hope, not evidence. 3. Outputs only: "Participants will make art, and families will attend an end-of-year showcase." No outcome the funder can check. Consequence: activities, not results. …
Real output from running the skill on a sample problem, shortened. The skill file itself is not published here.