Great science gets rejected for avoidable reasons. We help you fix them before a reviewer ever sees your draft.
GrantYourVision is a writing companion for the two attachments reviewers weigh most: your Specific Aims and your Research Strategy. It reads your draft the way a time-pressed reviewer skims it, shows you what is clear and what is missing, and helps you tighten the language, all locally in your browser, with nothing sent anywhere.
Why this matters
Funding decisions turn on a handful of pages, read quickly by experts juggling many applications. Strong science is necessary but not sufficient: if a reviewer can't immediately find the knowledge gap, the central hypothesis, the feasibility, and the payoff, the score suffers, no matter how good the work is.
Most of those losses are avoidable and structural: a buried aim, a missing rigor cue, hedged wording, an unclear impact statement, a draft that doesn't read like the mechanism it's aimed at. Those are exactly the things you can fix before submission, if someone points them out in time. That's what this does.
What's inside
Analysis tailored to your mechanism
Pick R01, R21, an F or K award, SBIR/STTR and more. Expectations, page and word guidance, and the review factors all adapt. It also flags when a draft doesn’t read like its grant, such as an R21 that reads like a mini-R01.
A reviewer-style read, tuned to your science
See how your draft feeds each review factor (Significance, Innovation, Approach) and what reads as present, thin, or missing. Pick a reviewer lens such as bench, translational, or clinical trial so the read matches the kind of research you do.
Similar funded grants
Search NIH RePORTER straight from your draft to see the funded projects closest to yours: who funded work like it, what they titled it, and what it was awarded. Discovery only, never a score.
Language fixes as you write
Live highlights for hedging, vague quantifiers, and over-long sentences, each with a plain-English explanation and a one-click rewrite.
The anatomy of a strong section
Built-in guidance on a strong Specific Aims page and the Significance / Innovation / Approach structure of a Research Strategy.
A submission-readiness check
Beyond the two attachments, a checklist of the formatting and package pieces (biosketch, budget, letters) that get proposals rejected before review.
How we keep it honest
- No predicted scores. Everything is a structural, reviewer-style cue (what's present in your text), never a number and never a prediction of funding.
- Page limits first, word counts second. NIH enforces page limits; the word ranges shown are estimates, and your specific NOFO always overrides our defaults.
- Your words stay yours. Analysis runs entirely in your browser, with no account, no server, and nothing uploaded. Loaded examples never overwrite your saved work.
- It's a companion, not advice. It helps you get review-ready; it isn't legal or funding advice, and it never tells you to hide or remove your science.
Tuned for NIH, and it makes any proposal stronger
The mechanism profiles, page limits, and review factors here are built around NIH review: Significance, Innovation, and Approach, plus rigor, feasibility, and (for fellowships and career awards) the candidate and training plan. If you're writing for NIH, it's tailored to exactly what your study section looks for.
But the habits it builds are universal. A clearly stated gap, one testable objective, aims that stand on their own, a rigorous and feasible plan, anticipated pitfalls, confident jargon-free writing, and an explicit payoff: these strengthen NSF, DoD/CDMRP, foundation, and international proposals too. The section names and page limits differ by funder, but reviewers everywhere reward the same clarity.
Tip: targeting a non-NIH funder? Draft against the closest NIH mechanism here to sharpen the structure, then re-map the section headings and limits to your funder's instructions.
Ready to get review-ready?
Paste a draft or load an example, pick your mechanism, and start tightening.