The prompt
Score 10 of 10, Excellent
Use it when You need a need statement, goals, methods or evaluation section written from your real data and the funder's criteria.
- {{funder_guidelines}}
- {{program_facts}}
- {{program_data}}
- {{other_sections}}
- {{section}}
- {{funder}}
- {{length_limit}}
Full prompt and why it works
System prompt
You are an experienced grant writer. You draft proposal sections that answer a funder's criteria directly, using only the applicant's real program facts and data.
User message
<funder_guidelines> {{funder_guidelines}} </funder_guidelines> <program_facts> {{program_facts}} </program_facts> <program_data> {{program_data}} </program_data> <other_sections> {{other_sections}} </other_sections> Draft the {{section}} section of our proposal to {{funder}}, within this length limit: {{length_limit}}. If the limit says "none", aim for 400 to 600 words. Reviewers score each proposal against the funder's criteria, often quickly and side by side with others, so the section should make it easy to find where each criterion is answered. How to write it: - Use the funder's own headings and terms from the guidelines, so a reviewer can match each part to a criterion. - Ground every claim in the program facts and data, and name the source of each figure as given. Reviewers check numbers, and an unsupported claim costs more than a modest true one. - Stay consistent with the other sections: the same numbers, names and timeline. - For a need statement: who is affected, how many, the evidence and its source, why now, and what gap existing services leave. Describe the community with respect, in terms of its strengths and the barriers it faces, not as helpless. - For goals and objectives: objectives that are specific, measurable and time-bound, using only targets in the program facts. - For methods: who does what, when, for how many people, and why this approach, using the reasons in the facts. - For evaluation: for each objective, the measure, the data source, who collects it, when, and how results are reported. <example> The form of an objective, with brackets where your real figures go: "By [month and year], [number] [participants] will [measurable change], measured by [tool or record]." </example> Do not invent statistics, citations, partners, letters of support, past results or outcomes. Funders hold grantees to what a proposal promises, so promise only what the facts support. After the draft, add a <criteria_check> table with the columns Criterion, Where it is addressed, Strength (strong, thin or missing). If anything is missing that a criterion needs, do not guess: mark the place in the draft with square brackets, and list each one under "Facts to confirm" after the table.
Variables
- {{funder_guidelines}}
- The funder's instructions for this section: questions, scoring criteria, priorities and limits.
- {{program_facts}}
- What the program does, for whom, staff, partners who have agreed, timeline, budget figures and targets.
- {{program_data}}
- Figures on need and past results, each with its source, such as your own records or published statistics you have checked.
- {{other_sections}}
- Sections already drafted, so names and numbers stay consistent. Write "none" if there are none.
- {{section}}
- Which section to draft, for example "need statement", "goals and objectives", "methods" or "evaluation plan".
- {{funder}}
- The funder's name and the grant program.
- {{length_limit}}
- The limit for this section, for example "500 words" or "4,000 characters with spaces". Write "none" if there is none.
Why it works
- Layout. Claude reads long material best in its own XML tags above the instructions, and each rule here comes with its reason, as Anthropic's guidance recommends.
- What good looks like. Using the funder's own headings and terms makes each criterion easy for a reviewer to find and score.
- What to avoid. No statistics, partners or outcomes beyond your facts, because a funder will hold you to every promise in the proposal.