RRepoGEO

REPOGEO REPORT · LITE

eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing

Default branch main · commit 11e59610 · scanned 5/10/2026, 4:02:52 PM

GitHub: 4,127 stars · 511 forks

AI VISIBILITY SCORE
27 /100
Critical
Category recall
0 / 2
Not recommended in any query
Rule findings
2 pass · 0 warn · 0 fail
Objective metadata checks
AI knows your name
1 / 3
Direct prompts that named your repo
HOW TO READ THIS REPORT

Action plan is what to do next — copy-pasteable changes prioritized by impact. Category visibility is the real GEO test: when a user asks an AI a brand-free question that should surface eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing, does the AI actually recommend you — or your competitors? Objective checks verify the metadata signals AI engines weight first. Self-mention check detects whether AI even knows you exist by name.

Action plan — copy-paste fixes

3 prioritized changes generated by gemini-2.5-flash. Mark items done after you ship the fix.

OVERALL DIRECTION
  • highreadme#1
    Clarify repo's identity as a resource list, not a tool

    Why:

    CURRENT
    A curated list of resources for using AI to develop more competitive grant applications.
    COPY-PASTE FIX
    This repository provides a curated, comprehensive guide and collection of resources for leveraging AI to develop more competitive grant applications, rather than being an AI tool itself.
  • mediumtopics#2
    Add topics to emphasize the repo's nature as a resource guide

    Why:

    CURRENT
    generative-ai, grant-proposals, grants, llms, scientific-writing
    COPY-PASTE FIX
    generative-ai, grant-proposals, grants, llms, scientific-writing, resource-list, guide, best-practices
  • lowabout#3
    Refine the repository description to highlight its role as a guide

    Why:

    CURRENT
    A curated list of resources for using LLMs to develop more competitive grant applications.
    COPY-PASTE FIX
    A comprehensive, curated guide and resource list for leveraging LLMs to develop more competitive grant applications.

Category GEO backends resolved for this scan: google/gemini-2.5-flash, deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash

Category visibility — the real GEO test

Brand-free queries asked to google/gemini-2.5-flash. Did AI recommend you, or someone else?

Same questions for every model — switch tabs to compare answers and rankings.

Recall
0 / 2
0% of queries surface eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing
Avg rank
—
Lower is better. #1 = top recommendation.
Share of voice
0%
Of all named tools, what % are you?
Top rival
ChatGPT
Recommended in 2 of 2 queries
COMPETITOR LEADERBOARD
  1. ChatGPT · recommended 2×
  2. Elicit · recommended 2×
  3. Grammarly · recommended 2×
  4. QuillBot · recommended 2×
  5. Scite.ai · recommended 2×
  • CATEGORY QUERY
    What AI tools and strategies can help improve the competitiveness of grant proposals?
    you: not recommended
    AI recommended (in order):
    1. ChatGPT
    2. GPT-4
    3. Elicit
    4. Grammarly
    5. QuillBot
    6. Scite.ai
    7. Consensus
    8. Trinka AI
    9. GrantForward
    10. PIVOT

    AI recommended 10 alternatives but never named eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing. This is the gap to close.

    Show full AI answer
  • CATEGORY QUERY
    Seeking resources on leveraging large language models for scientific writing in funding applications.
    you: not recommended
    AI recommended (in order):
    1. ChatGPT
    2. Claude
    3. Elicit
    4. Grammarly
    5. QuillBot
    6. Scite.ai
    7. Consensus

    AI recommended 7 alternatives but never named eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing. This is the gap to close.

    Show full AI answer

Objective checks

Rule-based audits of metadata signals AI engines weight most.

  • Metadata completeness
    pass

  • README presence
    pass

Self-mention check

Does AI even know your repo exists when asked about it directly?

  • Compared to common alternatives in this category, what is the core differentiator of eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing?
    pass
    AI did not name eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing — likely talking about a different project

    AI answers can be confidently wrong. Read for accuracy: does it match your actual tech stack, audience, and differentiator?

  • If a team adopts eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing in production, what risks or prerequisites should they evaluate first?
    pass
    AI named eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing explicitly

    AI answers can be confidently wrong. Read for accuracy: does it match your actual tech stack, audience, and differentiator?

  • In one sentence, what problem does the repo eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing solve, and who is the primary audience?
    pass
    AI did not name eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing — likely talking about a different project

    AI answers can be confidently wrong. Read for accuracy: does it match your actual tech stack, audience, and differentiator?

Embed your GEO score

Drop this badge into the README of eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing. It auto-updates whenever the report is rescanned and links back to the latest report — easy public proof that you care about AI discoverability.

RepoGEO badge previewLive preview
MARKDOWN (README)
[![RepoGEO](https://repogeo.com/badge/eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing.svg)](https://repogeo.com/en/r/eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing)
HTML
<a href="https://repogeo.com/en/r/eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing"><img src="https://repogeo.com/badge/eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing.svg" alt="RepoGEO" /></a>
Pro

Subscribe to Pro for deep diagnoses

eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing — Lite scans stay free; this card itemizes Pro deep limits vs Lite.

  • Deep reports10 / month
  • Brand-free category queries5 vs 2 in Lite
  • Prioritized action items8 vs 3 in Lite