agentic-team-templates 0.19.1 → 0.20.0

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

@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+# Writing for Review Criteria
+
+Guidelines for aligning proposals to scoring rubrics and reviewer expectations.
+
+## Aligning Narrative to Rubric
+
+Before writing, create a review criteria mapping:
+
+| Criterion | Weight | Page Limit | Key Phrases from RFP | Response Strategy |
+|-----------|--------|------------|---------------------|-------------------|
+| Need | 20 pts | 3 pages | "documented need," "data-driven" | Lead with 5 local data points |
+| Design | 30 pts | 5 pages | "evidence-based," "logic model" | Cite 3 research studies |
+| Capacity | 20 pts | 3 pages | "qualified staff," "track record" | Highlight 5 years of similar work |
+| Evaluation | 15 pts | 2 pages | "measurable outcomes," "data collection" | Include evaluation matrix |
+| Budget | 15 pts | 2 pages | "reasonable," "cost-effective" | Benchmark all costs |
+
+## Reviewer Psychology
+
+Reviewers are typically:
+
+- Reading multiple proposals in a short time
+- Looking for reasons to score high OR low
+- Following the rubric systematically
+- Noting whether the applicant answered what was asked
+
+### What Earns High Scores
+
+- Direct answers to what was asked
+- Specific, quantified data points
+- Clear alignment between need, approach, and outcomes
+- Evidence of organizational capacity and track record
+- Realistic timelines and budgets
+- Acknowledgment of limitations with mitigation strategies
+
+### What Earns Low Scores
+
+- Generic statements without supporting evidence
+- Misalignment between sections (need doesn't connect to design)
+- Missing required components
+- Overpromising relative to resources
+- Poor organization that makes information hard to find
+- Ignoring the rubric's weighting
+
+## Writing Techniques
+
+### Mirror the Language
+
+Use the exact terms from the RFP. If they say "evidence-based," use "evidence-based" (not "research-backed" or "proven").
+
+### Structure for Scannability
+
+- Use headers that match review criteria labels
+- Bold key metrics and outcomes
+- Use tables for complex data
+- Keep paragraphs focused (one idea each)
+- Use bullet lists for multiple items
+
+### Lead with the Answer
+
+Wrong:
+```text
+Our organization was founded in 1985 and has served the community
+for nearly 40 years. Over this time, we have developed numerous
+programs... [3 paragraphs later] ...which is why we are qualified
+to implement this project.
+```
+
+Right:
+```text
+Our organization has successfully implemented 12 federally-funded
+youth development programs serving 3,000+ participants over the
+past decade, with an average participant retention rate of 87%.
+```
+
+### Quantify Everything
+
+Wrong: "We have significant experience in this area."
+
+Right: "We have managed $4.2M in federal grants over the past 5 years with zero audit findings."
+
+## Letters of Support Strategy
+
+### Effective Letters Include
+
+- Specific commitment (staff time, space, referrals, data, expertise)
+- Explanation of why the project matters to the partner
+- Concrete role in the project
+- Signature from an authorized representative
+
+### Ineffective Letters
+
+- Generic praise without commitments
+- Form letters with no specific details
+- Letters from organizations with no clear connection to the project
+
+## Pre-Submission Review Checklist
+
+- [ ] Every review criterion is addressed with dedicated content
+- [ ] Page limits and formatting requirements met
+- [ ] All required attachments included
+- [ ] Budget matches narrative (staff, activities, timelines)
+- [ ] Logic model aligns with goals, objectives, and evaluation plan
+- [ ] All data citations are current (within 3-5 years)
+- [ ] DUNS/UEI number and Sam.gov registration current
+- [ ] Authorized representative signature obtained
+- [ ] Submission system tested (do not wait until deadline)
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+### Ignoring the Rubric
+
+Wrong: Write what you think is important.
+
+Right: Map every section of your narrative to specific review criteria and point values.
+
+### Last-Minute Submissions
+
+Wrong: Submit at 11:58 PM on the deadline.
+
+Right: Complete draft 2 weeks before deadline; internal review 1 week before; submit 48 hours early.

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

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+# Sustainability Planning
+
+Guidelines for demonstrating long-term program viability beyond grant funding.
+
+## Sustainability Framework
+
+```text
+Sustainability Strategy
+├── Financial Sustainability
+│   ├── Diversified funding (no single source > 40%)
+│   ├── Earned revenue strategies
+│   ├── Endowment or reserve building
+│   └── Continued grant seeking
+├── Programmatic Sustainability
+│   ├── Embed in organizational operations
+│   ├── Build staff capacity (not just grant-funded staff)
+│   ├── Create replicable processes
+│   └── Document and share best practices
+├── Community Sustainability
+│   ├── Build local ownership
+│   ├── Train community members
+│   ├── Create advisory structures
+│   └── Establish partnerships
+└── Political Sustainability
+    ├── Engage policymakers
+    ├── Document outcomes for advocacy
+    ├── Build coalition support
+    └── Align with policy priorities
+```
+
+## Sustainability Narrative Components
+
+When writing a sustainability section for a proposal, address these questions:
+
+### Financial Sustainability
+
+- How will activities continue after grant funding ends?
+- What alternative funding sources have been identified?
+- What revenue-generating activities are planned?
+- How will the organization build this into its operating budget?
+
+### Organizational Sustainability
+
+- How will program knowledge be retained if grant-funded staff leave?
+- What systems and processes will outlast the grant period?
+- How does this initiative integrate with existing organizational strategy?
+
+### Community Sustainability
+
+- How are community members involved in program design and governance?
+- What local capacity is being built?
+- What partnerships will continue beyond the grant?
+
+## Sustainability Plan Template
+
+```markdown
+## Sustainability Plan: [Program Name]
+
+### Year 1 (Grant-Funded)
+- Focus: Establish program, build partnerships, collect outcome data
+- Funding: 100% grant-funded
+- Key milestones: [List]
+
+### Year 2 (Transition)
+- Focus: Demonstrate outcomes, diversify funding
+- Funding: 60% grant, 20% organizational, 20% new sources
+- Key milestones: [List]
+
+### Year 3+ (Self-Sustaining)
+- Focus: Integrate into organizational operations
+- Funding: 30% grants, 40% organizational, 30% earned/other
+- Key milestones: [List]
+
+### Funding Diversification Strategy
+| Source | Amount | Status | Timeline |
+|--------|--------|--------|----------|
+| [Source 1] | $X | [Identified/Applied/Confirmed] | [Date] |
+| [Source 2] | $X | [Identified/Applied/Confirmed] | [Date] |
+
+### Organizational Integration
+[How the program will become part of regular operations]
+
+### Community Ownership
+[How community members will sustain and govern the program]
+```
+
+## Credibility Markers
+
+Reviewers look for evidence that sustainability is realistic, not aspirational:
+
+- **Diversified revenue**: Multiple funding sources already in place
+- **Board commitment**: Board resolution supporting long-term program
+- **Partner MOUs**: Written commitments from collaborating organizations
+- **Track record**: History of sustaining previously grant-funded programs
+- **Earned revenue**: Fee-for-service, social enterprise, or membership models
+- **Policy alignment**: Program aligns with existing policy mandates
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+### Vague Promises
+
+Wrong: "We will seek additional funding to sustain the program."
+
+Right: "We have identified three specific funding sources (X, Y, Z) totaling $150K annually and will submit applications in Year 2. Additionally, our fee-for-service model is projected to generate $45K annually by Year 3 based on comparable program data."
+
+### Ignoring Sustainability Until the End
+
+Wrong: Write the sustainability section as an afterthought.
+
+Right: Build sustainability thinking into program design from the beginning. Sustainability is a design constraint, not an appendix.