Technical Proposal Reviewer

Review technical project proposals for quality, consistency, overpromises, and legal risk. Produce actionable feedback the author can use to improve the proposal.

Review Workflow

1. Read the proposal — Load the full document (use docx or pdf skill as needed)
2. Assess structure — Check all expected sections are present and properly ordered
3. Check consistency — Verify cross-references between objectives, WPs, deliverables, budget, and timeline
4. Flag overpromises — Identify language that oversells or makes unsupported claims
5. Flag legal risk — Identify language that could create binding obligations
6. Evaluate content quality — Assess depth, citations, and clarity per section
7. Produce review report — Structured feedback with severity levels

Review Dimensions

1. Structural Completeness

Check that the proposal contains all standard sections. Missing sections should be flagged.

Expected sections (adapt to funding call):

• Abstract/Executive Summary
• State of the Art
• Objectives
• Methodology
• Work Plan / Work Packages
• Deliverables & Milestones
• Timeline
• Budget
• Risk Management
• Impact & Exploitation
• References

2. Internal Consistency

Cross-check these mappings:

From	To	Check
Objectives (O1..On)	Work Packages	Every objective covered by ≥1 WP
Work Packages	Objectives	Every WP maps to ≥1 objective
Tasks	Deliverables	Every deliverable traces to tasks
Deliverables	Timeline	Due dates within WP duration
Milestones	Timeline	Milestone dates on Gantt chart
Budget (effort)	WP effort tables	Person-months match
Partner roles	WP leads	Partners listed in WPs match consortium

3. Overpromise Detection

Flag statements that claim more than the evidence supports:

Red flags:

• "Will achieve X" without feasibility evidence → suggest "Aims to achieve X"
• Benchmark numbers stated as guaranteed outcomes → suggest framing as targets
• Claims of "first ever", "unique", "revolutionary" without strong justification
• Objectives that exceed project scope/budget/timeline
• Impact claims disconnected from project outputs

Suggested replacement patterns:

Overpromise	Suggested Alternative
"will achieve 95% accuracy"	"targets 95% accuracy based on preliminary results showing 88%"
"will revolutionize"	"has the potential to significantly advance"
"guaranteed delivery"	"planned delivery, subject to milestone review"
"unique solution"	"novel approach that differs from existing methods in [specific way]"
"will solve the problem"	"addresses key aspects of the problem, specifically [X, Y]"

4. Legal Risk Assessment

Flag language that could create enforceable obligations:

High risk:

• Unconditional commitments: "we will deliver", "we guarantee", "we commit to"
• Quantitative guarantees without caveats: "system will process 1M records/sec"
• IP transfer language without legal review
• Data sharing commitments that may conflict with GDPR or institutional policy
• Liability-implying language: "we accept responsibility for", "we ensure"

Recommended mitigations:

• Add "subject to" clauses for conditional commitments
• Frame deliverables as "planned" rather than "guaranteed"
• Add standard disclaimers for performance targets
• Flag IP and data clauses for legal counsel review

5. Content Quality

Per-section quality assessment:

Section	Key Quality Criteria
Abstract	Self-contained, concise, compelling, no jargon
State of the Art	Recent citations, fair comparison, clear gap statement
Objectives	SMART criteria met, realistic scope
Methodology	Concrete approach, justification over alternatives, feasibility
Work Plan	Clear task breakdown, realistic effort, dependencies shown
Impact	Concrete exploitation paths, quantified where possible
Risks	Honest assessment, high-impact risks included, mitigations concrete

Output Format

Produce a structured review report:

# Proposal Review: [Project Title/Acronym]

## Summary Assessment
[2-3 sentence overall assessment]
Overall readiness: [Ready / Needs Minor Revisions / Needs Major Revisions / Not Ready]

## Critical Issues (must fix)
1. [Issue description] — [Location in document] — [Suggested fix]

## Major Issues (should fix)
1. [Issue description] — [Location in document] — [Suggested fix]

## Minor Issues (nice to fix)
1. [Issue description] — [Location in document] — [Suggested fix]

## Overpromise Flags
1. [Quoted text] → [Suggested alternative] — [Section]

## Legal Risk Flags
1. [Quoted text] → [Risk description] — [Recommended action]

## Consistency Issues
1. [Description of mismatch] — [Sections involved]

## Strengths
1. [What works well]

## Section-by-Section Notes
### [Section Name]
- [Specific feedback]

Save the review report to data/output/ with naming: review_<project_name>_<YYYYMMDD>.md