@synsci/cli-darwin-x64 1.1.97 → 1.1.99

package/bin/skills/venue-templates/assets/examples/nature_abstract_examples.md

@@ -1,213 +0,0 @@
-# Nature/Science Abstract Examples
-
-Examples of well-crafted abstracts for high-impact multidisciplinary journals. These demonstrate the flowing paragraph style with broad accessibility expected at Nature, Science, and related venues.
-
----
-
-## Example 1: Molecular Biology / Cell Biology
-
-**Topic**: CRISPR gene editing discovery
-
-```
-The ability to precisely edit DNA sequences in living cells has transformed 
-biological research and holds promise for treating genetic diseases. However, 
-current genome editing tools can introduce unwanted mutations at off-target 
-sites, limiting their clinical potential. Here we describe prime editing, a 
-versatile and precise genome editing method that directly writes new genetic 
-information into a specified DNA site using a reverse transcriptase fused to a 
-CRISPR nickase. Prime editing can make all 12 types of point mutations, as 
-well as small insertions and deletions, with minimal off-target editing and 
-without requiring double-strand breaks or donor DNA templates. In human cells, 
-we used prime editing to correct the primary genetic causes of sickle cell 
-disease and Tay-Sachs disease, and to install protective mutations that 
-reduce risk of prion disease. Prime editing expands the scope and capabilities 
-of genome editing and may address approximately 89% of known human genetic 
-disease variants.
-```
-
-**Why this works**:
-- Opens with broad significance (genetic disease treatment)
-- States the problem clearly (off-target mutations)
-- Describes the approach accessibly ("writes new genetic information")
-- Includes specific results (all 12 point mutations, specific diseases)
-- Ends with quantified impact (89% of variants)
-
----
-
-## Example 2: Neuroscience
-
-**Topic**: Memory consolidation mechanism
-
-```
-Sleep is essential for memory consolidation, yet how the sleeping brain 
-transforms labile memories into stable long-term representations remains 
-poorly understood. We used multi-site electrophysiology in freely behaving 
-mice to record the activity of thousands of neurons across hippocampus and 
-cortex during learning and subsequent sleep. We discovered that specific 
-neurons that encode a newly learned memory reactivate in precisely timed 
-sequences during slow-wave sleep, with hippocampal reactivation preceding 
-cortical reactivation by 10-15 milliseconds. Optogenetic disruption of this 
-temporal coordination impaired memory retention by 78%, whereas artificial 
-enhancement of the temporal relationship strengthened memories beyond normal 
-levels. These results reveal that the temporal ordering of hippocampal-cortical 
-replay is not merely correlative but causally necessary for memory 
-consolidation. Our findings suggest new therapeutic approaches for memory 
-disorders based on optimizing the temporal dynamics of sleep.
-```
-
-**Why this works**:
-- Connects to well-known phenomenon (sleep and memory)
-- States what was unknown
-- Describes approach (multi-site recordings)
-- Key finding with specific number (10-15 ms)
-- Causal evidence (disruption and enhancement experiments)
-- Broader implications (therapeutic approaches)
-
----
-
-## Example 3: Climate Science
-
-**Topic**: Carbon cycle feedback
-
-```
-Arctic permafrost contains approximately 1,500 billion tonnes of organic 
-carbon—twice the amount currently in the atmosphere. As the Arctic warms, 
-this carbon may be released to the atmosphere, accelerating global warming 
-through a positive feedback loop. However, the magnitude and timing of this 
-feedback remain highly uncertain because microbial decomposition rates in 
-thawing permafrost are poorly constrained. Here we present a 15-year 
-field experiment across 25 sites spanning the Arctic, tracking carbon 
-fluxes in warming permafrost under natural conditions. We find that 
-microbial respiration increases exponentially with temperature until soils 
-reach 3°C, then plateaus due to substrate limitation—a threshold effect 
-not captured by current Earth system models. Our results suggest that 
-permafrost carbon feedback will be 30-50% lower than current projections 
-during this century, providing more time to limit warming, but will 
-accelerate dramatically if deep permafrost begins to thaw.
-```
-
-**Why this works**:
-- Opens with striking number (1,500 billion tonnes)
-- Clear problem statement (feedback uncertainty)
-- Specific methodology (15 years, 25 sites)
-- Novel finding (threshold at 3°C)
-- Implications both reassuring and cautionary
-
----
-
-## Example 4: Physics / Materials Science
-
-**Topic**: Room-temperature superconductivity
-
-```
-Superconductivity—the flow of electricity without resistance—has been 
-confined to extremely low temperatures since its discovery over a century 
-ago, limiting practical applications. The recent demonstration of 
-superconductivity in hydrogen-rich materials at high pressure has raised 
-hopes for higher transition temperatures, but achieving room-temperature 
-superconductivity at ambient pressure has remained elusive. Here we report 
-superconductivity at 21°C (294 K) in a nitrogen-doped lutetium hydride 
-(Lu-N-H) compound at pressures of approximately 1 GPa—nearly ambient 
-conditions. Electrical resistance drops to zero below the transition 
-temperature with a sharp transition width of 2 K, and we observe the Meissner 
-effect confirming bulk superconductivity. Density functional theory 
-calculations suggest that nitrogen incorporation stabilizes the high-symmetry 
-structure that enables strong electron-phonon coupling. These results 
-establish a pathway toward practical room-temperature superconductors.
-```
-
-**Why this works**:
-- Opens with accessible explanation of significance
-- Historical context (century-old limitation)
-- Precise results (21°C, 1 GPa, 2 K transition width)
-- Multiple lines of evidence (resistance + Meissner effect)
-- Theoretical explanation briefly included
-- Forward-looking conclusion
-
----
-
-## Example 5: Evolution / Ecology
-
-**Topic**: Rapid evolution in response to climate
-
-```
-Climate change is driving rapid shifts in the geographic distributions of 
-species, but whether organisms can adapt quickly enough to keep pace with 
-warming remains a critical question for biodiversity conservation. Here we 
-document real-time evolution in wild populations of a widespread forest tree, 
-Scots pine, along a 1,000 km latitudinal gradient in Scandinavia. By combining 
-whole-genome sequencing with phenotypic measurements across 25 common gardens, 
-we detect signatures of selection at 47 loci associated with cold tolerance, 
-phenology, and drought resistance over just 50 years—approximately 
-five tree generations. Alleles conferring warmer-adapted phenotypes have 
-increased in frequency by 4-12% across northern populations, matching 
-predictions from models of climate-driven selection. However, migration of 
-warm-adapted genotypes from the south appears limited by geographic barriers. 
-These results demonstrate that trees can evolve rapidly in response to 
-climate change but suggest that assisted gene flow may be necessary to 
-prevent local maladaptation.
-```
-
-**Why this works**:
-- Opens with pressing question (climate adaptation)
-- Specific system (Scots pine) and scale (1,000 km)
-- Methods described briefly (genomics + common gardens)
-- Quantitative results (47 loci, 4-12% frequency shift, 5 generations)
-- Mechanism identified (limited migration)
-- Conservation implications stated
-
----
-
-## Common Elements Across Examples
-
-### Structure (Implicit)
-1. **Hook**: Why this matters broadly (1-2 sentences)
-2. **Gap**: What was unknown or problematic (1 sentence)
-3. **Approach**: What was done (1 sentence)
-4. **Findings**: Key results with numbers (2-3 sentences)
-5. **Significance**: Why this matters going forward (1 sentence)
-
-### Style Features
-- **Active voice**: "We discovered," "We find," "We report"
-- **Specific numbers**: Exact values, not vague quantities
-- **Accessible language**: Minimal jargon, explained when needed
-- **Compelling opening**: Broad hook before technical details
-- **Strong close**: Implications or future directions
-
-### Word Count
-- Nature: 150-200 words (examples above: 185-210 words)
-- Science: ≤125 words (would need tightening)
-
----
-
-## What to Avoid
-
-❌ **Too technical opening**:
-> "The CRISPR-Cas9 system with guide RNA targeting PAM sequences..."
-
-✅ **Better opening**:
-> "The ability to precisely edit DNA in living cells..."
-
----
-
-❌ **Vague results**:
-> "Our method significantly outperformed existing approaches..."
-
-✅ **Better results**:
-> "Our method reduced off-target editing by 78% compared to standard Cas9..."
-
----
-
-❌ **Weak significance statement**:
-> "These findings may have implications for the field..."
-
-✅ **Better significance**:
-> "These findings suggest new therapeutic approaches for memory disorders..."
-
----
-
-## See Also
-
-- `nature_science_style.md` - Comprehensive Nature/Science writing guide
-- `venue_writing_styles.md` - Style comparison across venues
-

package/bin/skills/venue-templates/assets/examples/neurips_introduction_example.md

@@ -1,245 +0,0 @@
-# NeurIPS/ICML Introduction Example
-
-This example demonstrates the distinctive ML conference introduction structure with numbered contributions and technical precision.
-
----
-
-## Full Introduction Example
-
-**Paper Topic**: Efficient Long-Context Transformers
-
----
-
-### Paragraph 1: Problem Motivation
-
-```
-Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in 
-natural language understanding, code generation, and reasoning tasks [1, 2, 3]. 
-These capabilities scale with both model size and context length—longer 
-contexts enable processing of entire documents, multi-turn conversations, 
-and complex reasoning chains that span many steps [4, 5]. However, the 
-standard Transformer attention mechanism [6] has O(N²) time and memory 
-complexity with respect to sequence length N, creating a fundamental 
-bottleneck for processing long sequences. For a context window of 100K 
-tokens, computing full attention requires 10 billion scalar operations 
-and 40 GB of memory for the attention matrix alone, making training and 
-inference prohibitively expensive on current hardware.
-```
-
-**Key features**:
-- States why this matters (LLM capabilities)
-- Connects to scaling (longer contexts = better performance)
-- Specific numbers (O(N²), 100K tokens, 10 billion ops, 40 GB)
-- Citations to establish credibility
-
----
-
-### Paragraph 2: Limitations of Existing Approaches
-
-```
-Prior work has addressed attention efficiency through three main approaches. 
-Sparse attention patterns [7, 8, 9] reduce complexity to O(N√N) or O(N log N) 
-by restricting attention to local windows, fixed stride patterns, or learned 
-sparse masks. Linear attention approximations [10, 11, 12] reformulate 
-attention using kernel feature maps that enable O(N) computation, but 
-sacrifice the ability to model arbitrary pairwise interactions. Low-rank 
-factorizations [13, 14] approximate the attention matrix as a product of 
-smaller matrices, achieving efficiency at the cost of expressivity. While 
-these methods reduce theoretical complexity, they introduce approximation 
-errors that compound in deep networks, often resulting in 2-5% accuracy 
-degradation on long-range modeling benchmarks [15]. Perhaps more importantly, 
-they fundamentally change the attention mechanism, making it difficult to 
-apply advances in standard attention (e.g., rotary positional embeddings, 
-grouped-query attention) to efficient variants.
-```
-
-**Key features**:
-- Organized categorization of prior work
-- Complexity stated for each approach
-- Limitations clearly identified
-- Quantified shortcomings (2-5% degradation)
-- Deeper issue identified (incompatibility with advances)
-
----
-
-### Paragraph 3: Your Approach (High-Level)
-
-```
-We take a different approach: rather than approximating attention, we 
-accelerate exact attention by optimizing memory access patterns. Our key 
-observation is that on modern GPUs, attention is bottlenecked by memory 
-bandwidth, not compute. Reading and writing the N × N attention matrix to 
-and from GPU high-bandwidth memory (HBM) dominates runtime, while the GPU's 
-tensor cores remain underutilized. We propose LongFlash, an IO-aware exact 
-attention algorithm that computes attention block-by-block in fast on-chip 
-SRAM, never materializing the full attention matrix in HBM. By carefully 
-orchestrating the tiling pattern and fusing the softmax computation with 
-matrix multiplications, LongFlash reduces HBM accesses from O(N²) to 
-O(N²d/M) where d is the head dimension and M is the SRAM size, achieving 
-asymptotically optimal IO complexity.
-```
-
-**Key features**:
-- Clear differentiation from prior work ("different approach")
-- Key insight stated explicitly
-- Technical mechanism explained
-- Complexity improvement quantified
-- Method name introduced
-
----
-
-### Paragraph 4: Contributions (CRITICAL)
-
-```
-Our contributions are as follows:
-
-• We propose LongFlash, an IO-aware exact attention algorithm that achieves 
-  2-4× speedup over FlashAttention [16] and up to 9× over standard PyTorch 
-  attention on sequences from 1K to 128K tokens (Section 3).
-
-• We provide theoretical analysis proving that LongFlash achieves optimal 
-  IO complexity of O(N²d/M) among all algorithms that compute exact 
-  attention, and analyze the regime where our algorithm provides maximum 
-  benefit (Section 3.3).
-
-• We introduce sequence parallelism techniques that enable LongFlash to 
-  scale to sequences of 1M+ tokens across multiple GPUs with near-linear 
-  weak scaling efficiency (Section 4).
-
-• We demonstrate that LongFlash enables training with 8× longer contexts 
-  on the same hardware: we train a 7B parameter model on 128K token 
-  contexts using the same memory that previously limited us to 16K tokens 
-  (Section 5).
-
-• We release optimized CUDA kernels achieving 80% of theoretical peak 
-  FLOPS on A100 and H100 GPUs, along with PyTorch and JAX bindings, at 
-  [anonymous URL] (Section 6).
-```
-
-**Key features**:
-- Numbered/bulleted format
-- Each contribution is specific and quantified
-- Section references for each claim
-- Both methodological and empirical contributions
-- Code release mentioned
-- Self-contained bullets (each makes sense alone)
-
----
-
-## Alternative Opening Paragraphs
-
-### For a Methods Paper
-
-```
-Scalable optimization algorithms are fundamental to modern machine learning. 
-Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) and its variants [1, 2, 3] have enabled 
-training of models with billions of parameters on massive datasets. However, 
-these first-order methods exhibit slow convergence on ill-conditioned 
-problems, often requiring thousands of iterations to converge on tasks 
-where second-order methods would converge in tens of iterations [4, 5].
-```
-
-### For an Applications Paper
-
-```
-Drug discovery is a costly and time-consuming process, with the average new 
-drug requiring 10-15 years and $2.6 billion to develop [1]. Machine learning 
-offers the potential to accelerate this process by predicting molecular 
-properties, identifying promising candidates, and optimizing lead compounds 
-computationally [2, 3]. Recent successes in protein structure prediction [4] 
-and molecular generation [5] have demonstrated that deep learning can 
-capture complex chemical patterns, raising hopes for ML-driven drug discovery.
-```
-
-### For a Theory Paper
-
-```
-Understanding why deep neural networks generalize well despite having more 
-parameters than training examples remains one of the central puzzles of 
-modern machine learning [1, 2]. Classical statistical learning theory 
-predicts that such overparameterized models should overfit dramatically, 
-yet in practice, large networks trained with SGD achieve excellent test 
-accuracy [3]. This gap between theory and practice has motivated a rich 
-literature on implicit regularization [4], neural tangent kernels [5], 
-and feature learning [6], but a complete theoretical picture remains elusive.
-```
-
----
-
-## Contribution Bullet Templates
-
-### For a New Method
-
-```
-• We propose [Method Name], a novel [type of method] that [key innovation] 
-  achieving [performance improvement] over [baseline] on [benchmark].
-```
-
-### For Theoretical Analysis
-
-```
-• We prove that [statement], providing the first [type of result] for 
-  [problem setting]. This resolves an open question from [prior work].
-```
-
-### For Empirical Study
-
-```
-• We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of [N] methods across [M] datasets, 
-  revealing that [key finding] and identifying [failure mode/best practice].
-```
-
-### For Code/Data Release
-
-```
-• We release [resource name], a [description] containing [scale/scope], 
-  available at [URL]. This enables [future work/reproducibility].
-```
-
----
-
-## Common Mistakes to Avoid
-
-### Vague Contributions
-
-❌ **Bad**:
-```
-• We propose a novel method for attention
-• We show our method is better than baselines
-• We provide theoretical analysis
-```
-
-✅ **Good**:
-```
-• We propose LongFlash, achieving 2-4× speedup over FlashAttention
-• We prove LongFlash achieves optimal O(N²d/M) IO complexity
-• We enable 8× longer context training on fixed hardware budget
-```
-
-### Missing Quantification
-
-❌ **Bad**: "Our method significantly outperforms prior work"
-✅ **Good**: "Our method improves accuracy by 3.2% on GLUE and 4.1% on SuperGLUE"
-
-### Overlapping Bullets
-
-❌ **Bad**: 
-```
-• We propose a new attention mechanism
-• We introduce LongFlash attention
-• Our novel attention approach...
-```
-(These say the same thing three times)
-
-### Buried Contributions
-
-❌ **Bad**: Contribution bullets at the end of page 2
-✅ **Good**: Contribution bullets clearly visible by end of page 1
-
----
-
-## See Also
-
-- `ml_conference_style.md` - Comprehensive ML conference guide
-- `venue_writing_styles.md` - Style comparison across venues
-

package/bin/skills/venue-templates/assets/grants/nih_specific_aims.tex

@@ -1,235 +0,0 @@
-% NIH Specific Aims Page Template
-% THE MOST CRITICAL PAGE OF YOUR NIH PROPOSAL
-% 1 page maximum - strictly enforced
-% Last updated: 2024
-
-\documentclass[11pt,letterpaper]{article}
-
-% Formatting
-\usepackage[margin=0.5in]{geometry}  % 0.5 inch minimum margins
-\usepackage{helvet}  % Arial-like font
-\renewcommand{\familydefault}{\sfdefault}
-
-\usepackage{setspace}
-\usepackage{color}
-\usepackage{soul}  % For highlighting (remove in final version)
-
-% Remove page numbers (optional)
-\pagestyle{empty}
-
-\begin{document}
-
-% Optional: Highlight template text to remind yourself to replace
-% Remove \hl{} and color in final version
-\definecolor{highlight}{RGB}{255,255,200}
-\sethlcolor{highlight}
-
-% ====================
-% SPECIFIC AIMS PAGE
-% ====================
-
-\begin{center}
-\textbf{\large Your Project Title Here: Concise and Descriptive}
-\end{center}
-
-\vspace{0.3cm}
-
-% OPENING PARAGRAPH: The Hook and Gap
-% 2-3 sentences establishing significance and the knowledge gap
-
-\textbf{[Disease/condition]} affects \textbf{[number]} people worldwide and results in \textbf{[burden: mortality, morbidity, cost]}. \textbf{[Current treatment/understanding]} has improved outcomes, but \textbf{[limitation/gap]} remains a critical barrier to \textbf{[desired outcome]}. Understanding \textbf{[specific mechanism/relationship]} is essential for \textbf{[future advance: therapy, prevention, diagnosis]}.
-
-\vspace{0.2cm}
-
-% LONG-TERM GOAL
-% 1 sentence on your overarching research vision
-
-Our \textbf{long-term goal} is to \textbf{[overarching vision: develop cure, understand mechanism, improve treatment]} for \textbf{[disease/population]}. 
-
-\vspace{0.2cm}
-
-% OBJECTIVE AND CENTRAL HYPOTHESIS
-% 1-2 sentences on what THIS proposal will accomplish
-
-The \textbf{objective} of this proposal is to \textbf{[specific objective for this project]}. Our \textbf{central hypothesis} is that \textbf{[clearly stated, testable hypothesis]}.
-
-\vspace{0.2cm}
-
-% RATIONALE
-% 2-3 sentences explaining WHY you expect success (preliminary data!)
-
-This hypothesis is based on our \textbf{preliminary data} showing that \textbf{[key preliminary finding 1]} and \textbf{[key preliminary finding 2]}. These findings suggest that \textbf{[mechanistic explanation or expected outcome]}.
-
-\vspace{0.2cm}
-
-% TRANSITION TO AIMS
-% 1 sentence introducing the specific aims
-
-To test this hypothesis and achieve our objective, we will pursue the following \textbf{Specific Aims}:
-
-\vspace{0.3cm}
-
-% ====================
-% SPECIFIC AIM 1
-% ====================
-
-\noindent\textbf{Specific Aim 1: [Concise, active verb title describing what you'll do].}
-
-\textit{Working Hypothesis:} \hl{State testable hypothesis for this aim.}
-
-We will \textbf{[approach/method]} to determine \textbf{[what you'll learn]}. We will use \textbf{[model system/approach]} to test whether \textbf{[specific prediction]}. 
-
-\textbf{Expected Outcome:} We expect to find that \textbf{[predicted result]}. This outcome will demonstrate that \textbf{[significance of finding]} and will be \textbf{[positive/negative/innovative/transformative]} because \textbf{[why it matters]}.
-
-\vspace{0.3cm}
-
-% ====================
-% SPECIFIC AIM 2
-% ====================
-
-\noindent\textbf{Specific Aim 2: [Title of second aim].}
-
-\textit{Working Hypothesis:} \hl{Testable hypothesis for Aim 2.}
-
-Building on Aim 1, we will \textbf{[approach]} to \textbf{[objective]}. We will employ \textbf{[method/technique]} in \textbf{[model/population]} to test the hypothesis that \textbf{[specific prediction]}.
-
-\textbf{Expected Outcome:} These studies will reveal \textbf{[predicted finding]}. This is significant because \textbf{[impact on field/understanding]}.
-
-\vspace{0.3cm}
-
-% ====================
-% SPECIFIC AIM 3 (OPTIONAL)
-% ====================
-
-\noindent\textbf{Specific Aim 3: [Title of third aim].}
-
-\textit{Working Hypothesis:} \hl{Testable hypothesis for Aim 3.}
-
-To translate findings from Aims 1-2, we will \textbf{[approach]} to determine \textbf{[translational objective]}. We will \textbf{[method]} using \textbf{[clinically relevant model/patient samples]} to test whether \textbf{[translational prediction]}.
-
-\textbf{Expected Outcome:} We anticipate that \textbf{[result]}, which will provide \textbf{[proof-of-concept/validation/mechanism]} for \textbf{[therapeutic/diagnostic/preventive strategy]}.
-
-\vspace{0.3cm}
-
-% ====================
-% PAYOFF PARAGRAPH
-% ====================
-
-% 2-3 sentences on IMPACT, INNOVATION, and FUTURE DIRECTIONS
-
-\textbf{Impact and Innovation:} This project is \textbf{innovative} because it \textbf{[novel aspect: new concept, method, approach, application]}. The proposed research is \textbf{significant} because it will \textbf{[advance the field by...]} and will ultimately lead to \textbf{[long-term impact: improved treatment, new therapeutic target, diagnostic tool]}. Upon completion of these studies, we will be positioned to \textbf{[next steps: clinical trial, mechanistic studies, therapeutic development]}.
-
-\vspace{0.5cm}
-
-% ====================
-% ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE (if preferred)
-% ====================
-
-% Some successful Specific Aims pages use this alternative structure:
-% - Open with hook (same as above)
-% - State long-term goal and objective (same)
-% - Present central hypothesis with 2-3 supporting pieces of preliminary data
-% - Then state: "We will test this hypothesis through three Specific Aims:"
-% - List aims more concisely (1-2 sentences each, plus expected outcome)
-% - Conclude with payoff paragraph emphasizing innovation, significance, impact
-
-\end{document}
-
-% ====================
-% TIPS FOR WRITING SPECIFIC AIMS
-% ====================
-
-% 1. START WITH A HOOK
-%    - Open with the big picture: disease burden, societal cost, mortality
-%    - Use compelling statistics
-%    - Make it clear why anyone should care
-
-% 2. IDENTIFY THE GAP
-%    - What's currently known?
-%    - What's the critical barrier or unknown?
-%    - Why does it matter?
-
-% 3. STATE YOUR HYPOTHESIS EXPLICITLY
-%    - Clear, testable hypothesis
-%    - Not "We hypothesize that we will study..." (that's not a hypothesis!)
-%    - "We hypothesize that [mechanism] causes [outcome]"
-
-% 4. SHOW PRELIMINARY DATA
-%    - Demonstrate feasibility
-%    - Prove you're not starting from scratch
-%    - Build confidence in your approach
-
-% 5. THREE AIMS (TYPICALLY)
-%    - Can be 2 or 4, but 3 is most common
-%    - Aims should be related but somewhat independent
-%    - Failure of one aim shouldn't sink the whole project
-%    - Aims can build on each other (Aim 1 → Aim 2 → Aim 3)
-
-% 6. EACH AIM SHOULD HAVE:
-%    - Clear title (active verb)
-%    - Working hypothesis
-%    - Approach/method
-%    - Expected outcome
-%    - Significance/impact
-
-% 7. END WITH PAYOFF
-%    - Innovation: What's new/different?
-%    - Significance: Why does it matter?
-%    - Impact: What will change?
-%    - Future: Where does this lead?
-
-% 8. COMMON MISTAKES TO AVOID
-%    - Too much background (this is not a mini-review)
-%    - Vague hypotheses or objectives
-%    - Missing expected outcomes
-%    - No preliminary data mentioned
-%    - Too ambitious (can't do it all in 5 years)
-%    - Not addressing innovation and significance
-%    - Poor logical flow between aims
-%    - Exceeding 1 page (auto-reject!)
-
-% 9. FORMATTING RULES (STRICTLY ENFORCED)
-%    - 1 page maximum (including all text, no figures typically)
-%    - Arial 11pt minimum (or equivalent)
-%    - 0.5 inch margins minimum
-%    - Any spacing (single, 1.5, double acceptable)
-%    - No smaller fonts allowed (even for superscripts/subscripts)
-
-% 10. REVISION STRATEGY
-%    - Write, get feedback, revise 10+ times
-%    - Every word must earn its place
-%    - Test on non-specialist colleagues
-%    - Read aloud to check flow
-%    - Have it reviewed by successful R01 holders
-%    - Mock study section review
-
-% ====================
-% EXAMPLES OF STRONG OPENING SENTENCES
-% ====================
-
-% DISEASE BURDEN APPROACH:
-% "Alzheimer's disease (AD) affects 6.7 million Americans and will cost $345 billion in 2023, 
-% yet no disease-modifying therapies exist."
-
-% MECHANISTIC GAP APPROACH:
-% "Despite decades of research, the molecular mechanisms driving metastasis remain poorly understood, 
-% limiting our ability to develop effective therapies for the 90% of cancer deaths caused by metastatic disease."
-
-% TRANSLATIONAL APPROACH:
-% "Current immunotherapies fail in 70% of patients with melanoma, largely because we cannot predict 
-% who will respond, highlighting an urgent need for biomarkers of treatment response."
-
-% ====================
-% REMEMBER
-% ====================
-
-% The Specific Aims page is often the ONLY page reviewers read carefully before 
-% forming their initial opinion. A weak Specific Aims page can doom an otherwise 
-% excellent proposal. Invest the time to make it compelling, clear, and concise.
-
-% Get feedback from:
-% - Successful R01 awardees in your field
-% - Grant writing office at your institution
-% - Colleagues who've served on NIH study sections
-% - Non-specialists (if they can't understand it, reviewers may struggle too)
-