Grant Application Board — 3-Lens Review

How it works

Grant Application Board reviews a grant application in three phases instead of one polite pass:

Phase 1 — Three independent reviewers, blind. Reviewer Fatigue Realist, Eligibility & Compliance Skeptic, and Impact Story Sharpener each read the same draft without seeing each other's notes.

Phase 2 — Cross-examination. Every finding is challenged or corroborated by the other two lenses. False positives get contested with a concrete reason; issues flagged independently by more than one lens become stronger signals.

Phase 3 — Board verdict. Each finding is tagged CONFIRMED / CORROBORATED / DISPUTED, followed by one recommendation line you can act on.

Sample output

## Phase 3 — Board verdict
1. **[CORROBORATED]** Example finding flagged independently by two lenses — fix: one concrete rewrite.
2. **[DISPUTED]** Example finding with a lens challenge shown side by side — your call.

**Recommendation:** Fix first — 1 CORROBORATED finding (activities listed, no measurable outcome), rewrite that section.

Use cases

• Get a rigorous second opinion on a grant proposal before you submit
• Catch the failure modes a single-pass AI review tends to soften: narratives that lose a skimming reviewer, eligibility gaps hidden in fine print, and impact stories that list activities instead of outcomes
• Works inside Claude Code, Codex, or OpenClaw — paste a proposal narrative and go

FAQ

Does it guarantee funding? No — it reviews clarity and fit of the writing only.

What are the limits? It cannot guarantee funding or confirm the funder's current rules.

What about sensitive info? Check the funder's official guidelines for final eligibility. The Skill does not fetch or store your text anywhere on its own.