agentic-team-templates 0.19.1 → 0.20.0

package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/budgets.md

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Budget Development
+
+Guidelines for creating defensible grant budgets with clear justification narratives.
+
+## Federal Budget Categories (SF-424A)
+
+| Category | Description | Common Items |
+|----------|-------------|--------------|
+| Personnel | Salaries and wages | Project director, coordinators, specialists |
+| Fringe Benefits | Employee benefits | FICA, health insurance, retirement |
+| Travel | Project-related travel | Conferences, site visits, mileage |
+| Equipment | Items over $5,000 | Specialized equipment only |
+| Supplies | Consumable items | Office supplies, curriculum materials |
+| Contractual | Subcontracts, consultants | Evaluators, trainers, IT services |
+| Construction | Building/renovation | Rare in most grants |
+| Other | Miscellaneous costs | Rent, utilities, printing, postage |
+| Indirect Costs | Overhead rate | Negotiated IDC rate or de minimis 10% |
+
+## Budget Justification Narrative
+
+Every line item needs justification following this pattern:
+
+```markdown
+### Personnel
+**Project Director (1.0 FTE) - $75,000**
+The Project Director will oversee all program activities, supervise
+staff, manage partner relationships, ensure compliance with grant
+requirements, and lead evaluation efforts. Salary is based on the
+organization's established pay scale for this position level and
+is consistent with Bureau of Labor Statistics median salary for
+comparable positions in this region ($72,000-$78,000).
+
+### Fringe Benefits
+**Fringe Rate: 28% of Salaries - $21,000**
+Fringe benefits include FICA (7.65%), health insurance (14.5%),
+retirement contribution (3%), workers' compensation (1.85%), and
+unemployment insurance (1%). Rate is based on the organization's
+current actual fringe benefit costs as documented in the most
+recent audit.
+```
+
+## Multi-Year Budget Template
+
+| Line Item | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total |
+|-----------|--------|--------|--------|-------|
+| Personnel | $X | $X (+3% COLA) | $X (+3% COLA) | $X |
+| Fringe | $X | $X | $X | $X |
+| Travel | $X | $X | $X | $X |
+| Supplies | $X | $X | $X | $X |
+| Contractual | $X | $X | $X | $X |
+| Other | $X | $X | $X | $X |
+| **Direct Costs** | **$X** | **$X** | **$X** | **$X** |
+| Indirect (10%) | $X | $X | $X | $X |
+| **Total** | **$X** | **$X** | **$X** | **$X** |
+
+## Cost Share / Match Requirements
+
+### Cash Match
+
+| Source | Amount | Status | Documentation |
+|--------|--------|--------|---------------|
+| Organization general funds | $X | Committed | Board resolution |
+| Partner contribution | $X | Committed | MOU |
+
+### In-Kind Match
+
+| Source | Description | Valuation Method | Amount |
+|--------|-------------|------------------|--------|
+| Volunteer hours | 500 hrs x $29.95/hr | Independent Sector rate | $14,975 |
+| Donated space | 2,000 sq ft x $12/sq ft | Fair market value appraisal | $24,000 |
+
+## Budget Modification Rules
+
+| Modification Type | Threshold | Approval Required |
+|-------------------|-----------|-------------------|
+| Line item reallocation | < 10% of total | Usually internal |
+| Line item reallocation | > 10% of total | Prior approval from funder |
+| Scope change | Any | Prior approval required |
+| No-cost extension | N/A | Written request, usually 90 days before end |
+| Key personnel change | Any | Prior approval required |
+
+## Budget Quality Checks
+
+Before submission, verify:
+
+- All math is correct (totals, percentages, multi-year calculations)
+- Fringe rate matches organizational documentation
+- Travel costs align with federal per diem rates
+- Consultant rates are justified and reasonable
+- Indirect cost rate matches negotiated agreement or uses de minimis 10%
+- Match/cost share meets minimum requirements
+- Budget aligns with narrative (activities described have corresponding costs)
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+### Unsupported Budget Items
+
+Wrong: "Consultant - $50,000"
+
+Right: "External Evaluator (Dr. Smith, PhD) - 200 hours at $250/hour = $50,000. Rate based on GSA schedule and comparable evaluator rates in the region. See attached CV and scope of work."
+
+### Budget-Narrative Mismatch
+
+Wrong: Narrative describes five staff positions; budget shows three.
+
+Right: Every position, activity, and deliverable in the narrative has a corresponding budget line item.

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

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+# Compliance Requirements
+
+Guidelines for federal and foundation grant compliance, reporting, and record-keeping.
+
+## Federal Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200)
+
+Key compliance areas:
+
+| 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 |
+
+## Human Subjects Research
+
+If the project involves research with human participants:
+
+```text
+IRB Decision Tree
+├── Is this research? (systematic investigation to develop generalizable knowledge)
+│   ├── Yes → IRB review required
+│   │   ├── Exempt (minimal risk, standard educational practices)
+│   │   ├── Expedited (minimal risk, specific categories)
+│   │   └── Full Board (greater than minimal risk)
+│   └── No → Program evaluation only
+│       └── Document determination
+```
+
+## Reporting Requirements
+
+| Report Type | Frequency | Typical Content |
+|-------------|-----------|-----------------|
+| Progress/Performance Report | Quarterly or Semi-Annual | Activities, outputs, outcomes, challenges |
+| Financial Report (SF-425) | Quarterly or Semi-Annual | Expenditures by category, match documentation |
+| Annual Report | Yearly | Comprehensive progress, data analysis |
+| Final Report | End of grant | Cumulative results, lessons learned, sustainability |
+
+## Financial Tracking
+
+```text
+Monthly Financial Review
+├── Budget vs. Actual comparison by category
+├── Burn rate analysis (spending pace)
+├── Projection to end of period
+├── Identify underspending or overspending
+├── Document budget modification needs
+└── Reconcile with institutional accounting
+```
+
+## Allowable vs. Unallowable Costs
+
+### Generally Allowable
+
+- Salaries and wages for grant-funded staff
+- Fringe benefits at documented rates
+- Project-specific travel at federal per diem rates
+- Supplies directly used for the project
+- Subcontracts with proper procurement
+
+### Generally Unallowable
+
+- Entertainment and social events
+- Alcoholic beverages
+- Fundraising costs
+- Lobbying activities
+- Fines and penalties
+- Bad debts
+- Contributions to contingency reserves
+
+## Audit Preparedness
+
+Maintain these records at all times:
+
+- Grant award documents and amendments
+- Approved budget and all modifications
+- Time and effort certifications for all personnel
+- Procurement documentation (solicitations, bids, contracts)
+- Financial transaction records with receipts
+- Progress reports submitted to funder
+- Subrecipient monitoring documentation
+- Equipment inventory records
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+### Forgetting Post-Award Obligations
+
+Wrong: Celebrate the award and figure out implementation later.
+
+Right: Begin implementation planning during the proposal phase. Have systems ready before funds arrive.
+
+### Commingling Funds
+
+Wrong: Use grant funds for general operations without proper allocation.
+
+Right: Maintain separate accounting codes and track every expenditure to specific grant activities.

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

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+# Funding Opportunity Identification
+
+Guidelines for researching, evaluating, and tracking grant opportunities.
+
+## Research Strategy
+
+```text
+Funding Landscape Analysis
+├── Federal Grants
+│   ├── Grants.gov (primary database)
+│   ├── Federal Register notices
+│   ├── Agency-specific portals (NIH Reporter, NSF Award Search)
+│   └── Sam.gov (entity registration)
+├── State and Local Grants
+│   ├── State grant portals
+│   ├── Municipal RFPs
+│   └── Regional planning commissions
+├── Foundation Grants
+│   ├── Foundation Directory Online
+│   ├── Candid/GuideStar
+│   ├── 990 Finder (tax return analysis)
+│   └── Funder websites and annual reports
+└── Corporate Grants
+    ├── Corporate giving programs
+    ├── CSR reports
+    └── Industry-specific programs
+```
+
+## Funder Alignment Assessment
+
+Use a scorecard to evaluate fit before investing time in a proposal:
+
+| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Notes |
+|-----------|-------------|-------|
+| 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 Guide:**
+- 32-40: Strong fit - prioritize
+- 24-31: Good fit - pursue if capacity allows
+- 16-23: Marginal fit - consider carefully
+- Below 16: Poor fit - do not pursue
+
+## Funding Calendar
+
+Maintain a pipeline tracker:
+
+| Opportunity | Funder | Deadline | Amount | Status | Lead |
+|-------------|--------|----------|--------|--------|------|
+| [Grant Name] | [Funder] | [Date] | [Range] | Researching/Writing/Submitted | [Name] |
+
+## Pre-Submission Intelligence
+
+Before writing, gather:
+
+- Previous awardees (who won and what they proposed)
+- Funded amounts (typical award sizes)
+- Reviewer profiles (who evaluates proposals)
+- Program officer contact (relationship building)
+- Success rates (how competitive is this opportunity)
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+### Chasing Every Opportunity
+
+Wrong: Apply to everything that's remotely related.
+
+Right: Be selective. A focused portfolio of well-aligned proposals beats a scatter-shot approach.
+
+### Ignoring the Funder's History
+
+Wrong: Write a generic proposal without researching the funder.
+
+Right: Study past awards, read the funder's strategic plan, and tailor your approach.

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

@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+# Proposal Narrative
+
+Guidelines for writing compelling, evidence-based grant narratives.
+
+## Standard Federal Proposal Components
+
+```text
+Proposal Package
+├── Cover Page / SF-424
+├── Abstract / Project Summary (1 page)
+├── Table of Contents
+├── Project Narrative
+│   ├── Statement of Need (15-20% of narrative)
+│   ├── Goals and Objectives (10-15%)
+│   ├── Methods / Project Design (25-30%)
+│   ├── Evaluation Plan (15-20%)
+│   ├── Organizational Capacity (10-15%)
+│   └── Sustainability Plan (5-10%)
+├── Budget and Budget Justification
+├── Logic Model / Theory of Change
+├── Letters of Support / MOUs
+├── Appendices
+└── Certifications and Assurances
+```
+
+## Statement of Need
+
+The need statement establishes why the project matters. It must be data-driven and specific.
+
+### Structure
+
+1. **Geographic and Demographic Context**: Define service area with specificity using census data, surveys, or agency reports
+2. **Problem Documentation**: Present 3-5 data points that quantify the problem using recent data (within 3-5 years)
+3. **Gap Analysis**: What services exist, where do they fall short, what is unmet?
+4. **Connection to Project**: How does this project address the documented gaps?
+
+### Good Need Statement
+
+```text
+In Westfield County, 34% of children ages 0-5 live in households
+below 200% of the federal poverty level (ACS 2023), compared to
+22% statewide. Despite this elevated need, the county has only
+two licensed childcare centers serving 120 children, leaving an
+estimated 450 children without access to quality early education
+(County Needs Assessment, 2024). Families report average wait
+times of 14 months for childcare placement (Parent Survey, n=187).
+```
+
+### Bad Need Statement
+
+```text
+Many children in our area need help. There aren't enough programs
+to serve them. We believe our program will make a difference.
+```
+
+## Goals, Objectives, and Outcomes
+
+```text
+Goal (Broad, aspirational)
+├── Objective 1 (SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound)
+│   ├── Activity 1.1
+│   ├── Activity 1.2
+│   └── Expected Outcome 1
+├── Objective 2
+│   ├── Activity 2.1
+│   ├── Activity 2.2
+│   └── Expected Outcome 2
+```
+
+### Good Objective
+
+```text
+By September 30, 2027, 80% of participating youth (n=150) will
+demonstrate a 20% improvement in math proficiency as measured
+by pre/post standardized assessments.
+```
+
+### Bad Objective
+
+```text
+Youth will improve their academic performance.
+```
+
+## Logic Model
+
+```text
+┌──────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────┐
+│  Inputs  │Activities│ Outputs  │ Short-   │  Long-   │
+│          │          │          │  Term    │  Term    │
+│          │          │          │ Outcomes │ Outcomes │
+├──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
+│ Staff    │ Training │ # trained│ Knowledge│ Systemic │
+│ Funding  │ Sessions │ # served │ gains    │ change   │
+│ Partners │ Outreach │ # events │ Behavior │ Community│
+│ Space    │ Services │ # hours  │ change   │ impact   │
+│ Curricula│ Assessment│# assessed│ Skill    │ Policy   │
+│          │          │          │ gains    │ change   │
+└──────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┘
+```
+
+## Theory of Change
+
+### If-Then Chain
+
+If we [invest these resources] and [implement these activities], then we will produce [these outputs], which will lead to [these short-term outcomes], which will contribute to [these long-term outcomes], because [underlying assumptions/evidence base].
+
+### Required Components
+
+- **Assumptions**: What must be true for the theory to hold
+- **Evidence Base**: Research citations supporting the approach
+- **Causal Pathway**: Clear logical connections between each stage
+
+## Writing Tips for High Scores
+
+1. **Mirror the language of the RFP** - Use their exact terms
+2. **Use headers that match review criteria** - Make it easy to find content
+3. **Lead paragraphs with the key point** - Do not bury important information
+4. **Quantify everything possible** - Numbers are more convincing than adjectives
+5. **One idea per paragraph** - Dense writing loses reviewers
+6. **Bold key metrics and outcomes** - Help skimmers find critical data
+7. **Address weaknesses proactively** - Acknowledge limitations and mitigations
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+### Proposal Scope Creep
+
+Wrong: Promise everything the funder could possibly want.
+
+Right: Propose what you can actually deliver with the requested resources, with realistic timelines.
+
+### Generic Need Statements
+
+Wrong: "Poverty is a national problem affecting millions."
+
+Right: Cite local data, compare to benchmarks, quantify the specific gap your project addresses.

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

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+# 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.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+# 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 in calendar
+- [ ] Conduct kickoff meeting
+
+## Financial Oversight
+
+### Monthly Review Process
+
+1. **Budget vs. Actual**: Compare spending to plan by category
+2. **Burn Rate**: Calculate spending pace relative to grant period
+3. **Projections**: Forecast spending through end of period
+4. **Variances**: Identify and document over/under spending
+5. **Modifications**: Determine if budget changes are needed
+6. **Reconciliation**: Match internal records to institutional accounting
+
+### Warning Signs
+
+| 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 budget allocations |
+| Key position vacant > 60 days | Activity delays | Expedite hiring or request scope adjustment |
+| Subrecipient behind schedule | Downstream delays | Increase monitoring, provide technical assistance |
+
+## No-Cost Extension Request
+
+```markdown
+## No-Cost Extension Request
+
+**Grant Number:** [Number]
+**Current End Date:** [Date]
+**Requested End Date:** [Date]
+
+### Justification
+[Explain why additional time is needed]
+
+### Remaining Funds
+[Amount remaining and how it will be spent]
+
+### Activities to Complete
+1. [Activity] - Expected completion: [Date]
+2. [Activity] - Expected completion: [Date]
+
+### Impact on Project Goals
+[Explain how extension ensures objectives are met]
+```
+
+## Data Collection and Evaluation
+
+### Implementation Tracking
+
+- Record all 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
+- Maintain participant records with appropriate consent
+
+### Evaluation Timeline
+
+| Phase | Activity | Timing |
+|-------|----------|--------|
+| Baseline | Collect pre-intervention data | Before activities begin |
+| Process | Monitor implementation fidelity | Ongoing |
+| Formative | Assess early outcomes, adjust | Midpoint |
+| Summative | Measure final outcomes | End of grant period |
+
+## Grant Closeout
+
+### Closeout Checklist
+
+- [ ] All grant-funded activities completed
+- [ ] Final progress report submitted
+- [ ] Final financial report (SF-425) submitted
+- [ ] All equipment inventoried and disposition determined
+- [ ] Subrecipient closeout completed
+- [ ] Records organized for retention period (minimum 3 years)
+- [ ] Lessons learned documented
+- [ ] Final reconciliation with institutional accounting
+- [ ] Excess funds returned (if applicable)
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+### Reactive Reporting
+
+Wrong: Scramble to compile data when reports are due.
+
+Right: Collect data continuously. Reporting should be a matter of formatting what you already have.
+
+### Ignoring Burn Rate
+
+Wrong: Realize at month 10 that 60% of funds are unspent.
+
+Right: Review spending monthly. Identify pace issues early and adjust.