@djm204/agent-skills 1.0.0

package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/compliance.mdc

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+---
+description: Compliance Requirements
+alwaysApply: false
+---
+
+# Compliance Requirements
+
+Guidelines for federal and foundation grant compliance, reporting, and record-keeping.
+
+## Federal Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200)
+
+| Area | Requirement | Documentation |
+|------|-------------|---------------|
+| Financial Management | Adequate accounting systems | Audit reports, policies |
+| Procurement | Competitive bidding above thresholds | Procurement records |
+| Property Management | Track equipment purchased with funds | Inventory records |
+| Time and Effort | Document personnel time on grant | Timesheets, certifications |
+| Subrecipient Monitoring | Oversee sub-awards | Monitoring plans, reports |
+| Record Retention | Maintain records 3+ years post-closeout | Filing system |
+
+## Reporting Requirements
+
+| Report Type | Frequency | Content |
+|-------------|-----------|---------|
+| Progress/Performance | Quarterly or Semi-Annual | Activities, outputs, outcomes, challenges |
+| Financial (SF-425) | Quarterly or Semi-Annual | Expenditures by category, match docs |
+| Annual | Yearly | Comprehensive progress, data analysis |
+| Final | End of grant | Cumulative results, lessons learned, sustainability |
+
+## Allowable vs. Unallowable Costs
+
+**Generally allowable:** Salaries/wages for grant staff, fringe at documented rates, project travel at federal per diem, project-specific supplies, properly procured subcontracts.
+
+**Generally unallowable:** Entertainment/social events, alcohol, fundraising, lobbying, fines/penalties, bad debts, contingency reserves.
+
+## Human Subjects Research
+
+If research involves human participants, determine IRB level: Exempt (minimal risk), Expedited (minimal risk, specific categories), or Full Board (greater than minimal risk). Program evaluation only requires documented determination.
+
+## Audit Preparedness
+
+Maintain at all times: award documents and amendments, approved budget and modifications, time/effort certifications, procurement documentation, financial transaction records, progress reports, subrecipient monitoring docs, equipment inventory.
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- **Forgetting post-award obligations** — Begin implementation planning during proposal phase; have systems ready before funds arrive
+- **Commingling funds** — Maintain separate accounting codes; track every expenditure to specific grant activities

package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/funding-research.mdc

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+---
+description: Funding Opportunity Identification
+alwaysApply: false
+---
+
+# Funding Opportunity Identification
+
+Guidelines for researching, evaluating, and tracking grant opportunities.
+
+## Research Sources
+
+- **Federal:** Grants.gov, Federal Register, agency portals (NIH Reporter, NSF Award Search), Sam.gov
+- **State/Local:** State grant portals, municipal RFPs, regional planning commissions
+- **Foundation:** Foundation Directory Online, Candid/GuideStar, 990 Finder, funder websites/annual reports
+- **Corporate:** Corporate giving programs, CSR reports, industry-specific programs
+
+## Funder Alignment Scorecard
+
+Evaluate fit before investing time in a proposal (score each 1-5):
+
+- Mission alignment
+- Geographic focus match
+- Population served match
+- Funding range appropriate
+- Eligible applicant type
+- Timeline feasibility
+- Capacity to meet requirements
+- Past relationship with funder
+
+**Scoring:** 32-40 strong fit (prioritize), 24-31 good fit (pursue if capacity allows), 16-23 marginal (consider carefully), below 16 poor fit (skip).
+
+## Funding Pipeline Tracker
+
+Maintain: opportunity name, funder, deadline, amount range, status (researching/writing/submitted), and lead person.
+
+## Pre-Submission Intelligence
+
+Before writing, gather:
+- Previous awardees (who won and what they proposed)
+- Funded amounts (typical award sizes)
+- Reviewer profiles and program officer contact
+- Success rates (how competitive is this opportunity)
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- **Chasing every opportunity** — A focused portfolio of well-aligned proposals beats scatter-shot
+- **Ignoring funder history** — Study past awards, read the funder's strategic plan, tailor your approach

package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/narrative.mdc

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+---
+description: Proposal Narrative
+alwaysApply: false
+---
+
+# Proposal Narrative
+
+Guidelines for writing compelling, evidence-based grant narratives.
+
+## Narrative Sections (Typical Weight)
+
+- **Statement of Need** (15-20%): Data-driven case for why the project matters
+- **Goals and Objectives** (10-15%): SMART objectives with measurable outcomes
+- **Methods / Project Design** (25-30%): Evidence-based approach and activities
+- **Evaluation Plan** (15-20%): How outcomes will be measured
+- **Organizational Capacity** (10-15%): Qualifications and track record
+- **Sustainability Plan** (5-10%): Long-term viability beyond grant funding
+
+## Statement of Need
+
+Structure: geographic/demographic context (cite census, surveys, reports), problem documentation (3-5 recent data points, compare to benchmarks), gap analysis (existing services vs. unmet need), connection to project.
+
+**Good:** "In Westfield County, 34% of children ages 0-5 live below 200% FPL (ACS 2023) vs. 22% statewide. Only 2 centers serve 120 children, leaving 450 without access (County Assessment, 2024)."
+
+**Bad:** "Many children in our area need help. There aren't enough programs."
+
+## Goals and Objectives
+
+Goal (broad) → SMART Objectives → Activities → Expected Outcomes.
+
+**Good:** "By Sept 30, 2027, 80% of participants (n=150) will demonstrate 20% improvement in math proficiency via pre/post standardized assessments."
+
+**Bad:** "Youth will improve their academic performance."
+
+## Logic Model
+
+Map: Inputs (resources needed) → Activities (what you do) → Outputs (evidence of work) → Short-term Outcomes (changes in people) → Long-term Outcomes (lasting community impact).
+
+## Theory of Change
+
+**If-Then Chain:** If we [invest resources] and [implement activities], then [outputs], leading to [short-term outcomes], contributing to [long-term outcomes], because [evidence base].
+
+Include: assumptions that must hold, evidence citations supporting the approach, clear causal pathway between each stage.
+
+## Writing Tips
+
+1. Mirror the RFP's exact language
+2. Use headers matching review criteria
+3. Lead paragraphs with the key point
+4. Quantify everything possible
+5. One idea per paragraph
+6. Bold key metrics and outcomes
+7. Address weaknesses proactively
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- **Scope creep** — Propose what you can deliver with requested resources and realistic timelines
+- **Generic need statements** — Cite local data, compare to benchmarks, quantify the specific gap

package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/overview.mdc

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+---
+description: Grant Writing
+alwaysApply: false
+---
+
+# Grant Writing
+
+Principal-level guidelines for securing funding through strategic proposal development.
+
+## Scope
+
+This ruleset applies to:
+
+- Funding opportunity identification and research
+- Proposal narrative development
+- Logic models and theories of change
+- Budget creation and justification
+- Federal and foundation compliance
+- Review criteria alignment
+- Letters of support coordination
+- Post-award management and reporting
+
+## Core Philosophy
+
+**Write to the rubric, not around it.** Every section of a proposal must directly address review criteria with evidence-based claims, quantified impact, and clear alignment between the funder's priorities and your organization's capacity.
+
+## Fundamental Principles
+
+### 1. Funder Alignment First
+
+Only pursue opportunities that match your organization's mission and capacity. A poor-fit proposal wastes everyone's time.
+
+### 2. Evidence-Based Narratives
+
+Every claim must be supported by data, research, or documented need. "Many people need help" loses to "34% of children ages 0-5 live below 200% FPL (ACS 2023)."
+
+### 3. Review Criteria Obsession
+
+Map every section of your narrative to specific review criteria and point values. Reviewers follow rubrics—so should you.
+
+### 4. Budget as Narrative
+
+Every dollar tells a story about program impact. If you can't justify a line item, remove it.
+
+### 5. Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
+
+Regulations exist for a reason. Build compliance into your process from day one, not as an afterthought.
+
+## Core Frameworks
+
+| Framework | Purpose |
+|-----------|---------|
+| Logic Model | Map inputs to outcomes visually |
+| Theory of Change | Articulate causal pathway to impact |
+| SMART Goals | Define measurable, achievable objectives |
+| Needs Assessment | Document and quantify the problem |
+| Evaluation Plan | Design measurement strategy |
+| Sustainability Plan | Demonstrate long-term viability |
+
+## Decision Framework
+
+When evaluating a funding opportunity:
+
+1. **Mission Alignment**: Does this match our organization's purpose?
+2. **Capacity**: Can we realistically deliver what's required?
+3. **Eligibility**: Do we meet all applicant requirements?
+4. **Competitiveness**: Do we have a strong case relative to likely applicants?
+5. **ROI**: Is the funding amount worth the proposal effort?

package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/post-award.mdc

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+description: Post-Award Management
+alwaysApply: false
+---
+
+# Post-Award Management
+
+Guidelines for grant implementation, financial oversight, and reporting.
+
+## Award Setup Checklist
+
+- Review Notice of Award terms and conditions
+- Set up grant-specific accounting codes
+- Establish time and effort reporting
+- Create project timeline with milestones
+- Onboard or reassign staff
+- Notify partners and subrecipients
+- Set up data collection systems
+- Schedule reporting deadlines
+- Conduct kickoff meeting
+
+## Financial Oversight
+
+**Monthly review:** Budget vs. actual by category, burn rate analysis, projections to end of period, variance identification, modification needs, reconciliation with institutional accounting.
+
+| Warning Signal | Meaning | Action |
+|----------------|---------|--------|
+| Spending < 50% at midpoint | Underspending risk | Accelerate activities or request no-cost extension |
+| Spending > 75% at midpoint | Overspending risk | Review and adjust allocations |
+| Key position vacant > 60 days | Activity delays | Expedite hiring or request scope adjustment |
+| Subrecipient behind schedule | Downstream delays | Increase monitoring, provide technical assistance |
+
+## Data Collection and Evaluation
+
+- Record activities as they occur (do not reconstruct later)
+- Track outputs quantitatively (number served, hours delivered, events held)
+- Collect outcome data at planned intervals (pre/post assessments)
+- Document challenges and adaptations
+- Phases: Baseline → Process monitoring → Formative (midpoint) → Summative (end)
+
+## No-Cost Extension
+
+Submit request (usually 90 days before end) with: grant number, current/requested end dates, justification, remaining funds and spending plan, activities to complete, impact on project goals.
+
+## Grant Closeout Checklist
+
+- All grant-funded activities completed
+- Final progress and financial reports submitted
+- Equipment inventoried and disposition determined
+- Subrecipient closeout completed
+- Records organized for retention (minimum 3 years)
+- Lessons learned documented
+- Final reconciliation complete
+- Excess funds returned if applicable
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- **Reactive reporting** — Collect data continuously; reporting should be formatting what you already have
+- **Ignoring burn rate** — Review spending monthly; identify pace issues early

package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/review-criteria.mdc

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+---
+description: Writing for Review Criteria
+alwaysApply: false
+---
+
+# Writing for Review Criteria
+
+Guidelines for aligning proposals to scoring rubrics and reviewer expectations.
+
+## Review Criteria Mapping
+
+Before writing, map every criterion: weight (points), page limit, key phrases from RFP, and your response strategy.
+
+Example: Need (20 pts, 3 pages, "documented need" / "data-driven") → Lead with 5 local data points.
+
+## Reviewer Psychology
+
+Reviewers are reading multiple proposals quickly, following the rubric systematically, and looking for reasons to score high or low.
+
+**High scores:** Direct answers to what was asked, specific quantified data, clear alignment between need/approach/outcomes, evidence of capacity, realistic timelines and budgets, acknowledged limitations with mitigations.
+
+**Low scores:** Generic unsupported statements, section misalignment, missing required components, overpromising relative to resources, poor organization, ignoring rubric weighting.
+
+## Writing Techniques
+
+- **Mirror the language** — Use exact terms from the RFP ("evidence-based" not "research-backed")
+- **Structure for scannability** — Headers matching criteria labels, bold key metrics, tables for data, one idea per paragraph
+- **Lead with the answer** — "We have managed $4.2M in federal grants with zero audit findings" not 3 paragraphs of history first
+- **Quantify everything** — "Significant experience" → "$4.2M in federal grants over 5 years"
+
+## Letters of Support
+
+**Effective:** Specific commitments (staff time, space, referrals, data), explanation of why project matters to partner, concrete role, authorized signature.
+
+**Ineffective:** Generic praise without commitments, form letters, letters from unrelated organizations.
+
+## Pre-Submission Checklist
+
+- Every review criterion addressed with dedicated content
+- Page limits and formatting requirements met
+- All required attachments included
+- Budget matches narrative
+- Logic model aligns with goals, objectives, and evaluation
+- Data citations current (within 3-5 years)
+- Registration current (DUNS/UEI, Sam.gov)
+- Submission system tested before deadline
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- **Ignoring the rubric** — Map every narrative section to specific criteria and point values
+- **Last-minute submissions** — Draft 2 weeks early, internal review 1 week early, submit 48 hours before deadline

package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/sustainability.mdc

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+---
+description: Sustainability Planning
+alwaysApply: false
+---
+
+# Sustainability Planning
+
+Guidelines for demonstrating long-term program viability beyond grant funding.
+
+## Sustainability Framework
+
+- **Financial:** Diversified funding (no single source > 40%), earned revenue strategies, endowment/reserve building, continued grant seeking
+- **Programmatic:** Embed in organizational operations, build staff capacity beyond grant-funded positions, create replicable processes, document best practices
+- **Community:** Build local ownership, train community members, create advisory structures, establish partnerships
+- **Political:** Engage policymakers, document outcomes for advocacy, build coalition support, align with policy priorities
+
+## Narrative Components
+
+Address these questions in the sustainability section:
+
+**Financial:** How will activities continue after funding ends? What alternative sources are identified? What revenue-generating activities are planned?
+
+**Organizational:** How will program knowledge be retained if grant-funded staff leave? What systems outlast the grant? How does this integrate with existing strategy?
+
+**Community:** How are community members involved in design and governance? What local capacity is being built? What partnerships continue beyond the grant?
+
+## Phased Sustainability Plan
+
+- **Year 1 (Grant-Funded):** Establish program, build partnerships, collect outcome data. 100% grant-funded.
+- **Year 2 (Transition):** Demonstrate outcomes, diversify funding. Target: 60% grant, 20% organizational, 20% new sources.
+- **Year 3+ (Self-Sustaining):** Integrate into operations. Target: 30% grants, 40% organizational, 30% earned/other.
+
+Include a funding diversification table: source, amount, status (identified/applied/confirmed), timeline.
+
+## Credibility Markers
+
+Reviewers look for evidence sustainability is realistic, not aspirational:
+- Diversified revenue already in place
+- Board commitment (resolution supporting long-term program)
+- Partner MOUs with written commitments
+- Track record of sustaining previously grant-funded programs
+- Earned revenue model (fee-for-service, social enterprise, membership)
+- Alignment with existing policy mandates
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- **Vague promises** — "We will seek additional funding" vs. naming 3 specific sources with projected amounts and application timelines
+- **Afterthought sustainability** — Build sustainability into program design from day one; it's a design constraint, not an appendix