REPOGEO REPORT · LITE

eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing

Default branch main · commit 0d405fad · scanned 6/20/2026, 3:08:55 PM

GitHub: 4,139 stars · 515 forks

Scan history for this repo

Score trend below includes all ready runs (older left, newer right; scroll horizontally if needed). The table is collapsed by default—expand for newest-first rows, 10 per page.

Score trend (left → right: older → newer)

2 ready scans. Expand the table below for newest-first rows (10 per page, paginated).

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

Reposition the README's initial description to explicitly state it's a resource guide, not a tool

Why:

CURRENT

A curated list of resources for using AI to develop more competitive grant applications.

COPY-PASTE FIX

This repository offers a curated, open-source collection of resources, prompts, and strategies for leveraging large language models (LLMs) to enhance grant writing. It serves as a comprehensive guide and reference, distinct from a deployable AI application or service.

mediumtopics#2

Add topics that clarify the repository's format as a resource list or 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, prompts

lowabout#3

Refine the repository description to highlight the problem it solves for its audience

Why:

CURRENT

A curated list of resources for using LLMs to develop more competitive grant applications.

COPY-PASTE FIX

A curated, open-source collection of resources and strategies to help grant writers and researchers leverage LLMs for developing more competitive and successful 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

Of all named tools, what % are you?

Top rival

ChatGPT

Recommended in 2 of 2 queries

COMPETITOR LEADERBOARD

ChatGPT · recommended 2×
Elicit · recommended 2×
Semantic Scholar · recommended 2×
Google Gemini · recommended 1×
Claude · recommended 1×

CATEGORY QUERY
How can generative AI assist in developing more competitive and successful grant applications?
you: not recommended
AI recommended (in order):
1. ChatGPT
2. Google Gemini
3. Claude
4. QuillBot
5. GrammarlyGo
6. Elicit
7. Semantic Scholar
AI recommended 7 alternatives but never named eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing. This is the gap to close.
Show full AI answer
CATEGORY QUERY
Where can I find resources on using LLMs for scientific writing and grant proposal drafting?
you: not recommended
AI recommended (in order):
1. ChatGPT
2. Elicit
3. Scite.ai
4. Semantic Scholar
5. Perplexity AI
6. DeepL Write
7. Grammarly
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 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?
If a team adopts eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing in production, what risks or prerequisites should they evaluate first?
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?
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.

Live 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