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:

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:

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:

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