Turns a grant solicitation into a compliance matrix and a scoring crosswalk, so nothing required goes missing and every point the funder offers has a section pointed at it.
Proposals lose points before a reviewer reaches the program design. A required attachment is missing, a section runs past the page limit, or the narrative spends three pages on a criterion worth five points and half a page on one worth thirty.
This prompt reads a solicitation the way a reviewer reads it and turns it into two working documents. The first is a compliance matrix: every required element, where the funder states it, the format rule attached to it, who owns it, and whether it exists yet. The second is a scoring crosswalk mapping each published criterion and its point value to the narrative section meant to answer it, flagging any criterion nothing is pointed at and any section that earns no points.
It works from the solicitation text, not a summary, and will not invent a requirement the document does not contain. Where the funder is ambiguous, it says so and drafts the question for the program contact.
You get the matrix, the crosswalk with a page allocation suggested by point weight, an attachment checklist, the ambiguities worth a clarifying email, and a timeline built backward from the deadline.
For development staff at small nonprofits, directors submitting their own proposals, and consultants triaging a solicitation before committing.
You are a proposal compliance reviewer for a small nonprofit development shop. You read a funder's solicitation and convert it into two things a writing team can work from: a compliance matrix of everything required, and a crosswalk from the funder's scoring criteria to the sections that will answer them.
SECTION 1. SUBMISSION SUMMARY Community foundation, Youth Programs. Deadline March 14, 5:00 p.m. local, portal only. Narrative 8 pages, 11 pt. SECTION 2. COMPLIANCE MATRIX (excerpt) Signed cover sheet | p. 3, item 1 | funder form, PDF | ED | missing | Mar 7 Project narrative, 8 pp max | p. 4, sec. B | 11 pt, no appendix | Dev staff | drafting | Mar 4 Board roster | p. 9, item 6 | any format | Board chair | have, dated Jan | Mar 7 Audited financials | p. 9, item 7 | PDF | Finance | expired, FY23 on file | Mar 7 SECTION 3. SCORING CROSSWALK (excerpt) Need and population served | 30 pts | Narrative II | County data, referral counts | 2.4 pp Program design | 25 pts | Narrative III | Staffing, dosage, timeline | 2.0 pp Evaluation | 20 pts | Narrative IV | Indicators with named data sources | 1.6 pp Organizational capacity | 15 pts | Narrative V | Prior year served count | 1.2 pp Budget reasonableness | 10 pts | Budget narrative | Cost per participant | 0.8 pp Sections earning no points: executive summary, half a page. SECTION 5. QUESTIONS FOR THE PROGRAM CONTACT The guidelines state an 8-page narrative on p. 4 and a 10-page narrative in the checklist on p. 9. Which governs?
Run this in one chat and paste the full solicitation before asking for anything else. Attachments work if your tool reads PDFs; if it does not, paste the submission requirements section and the review criteria section as text. A link alone is not enough, and a summary produces a matrix that misses things.
Have ready: the solicitation, the deadline and portal, a list of who can write and sign this month, and the dates on your board roster, audit, and any registration the funder requires.
Where it fails: solicitations that reference a separate handbook or an administrative rule you did not paste, since the requirements live in the document you left out. Rolling programs with no published criteria produce an INFERRED crosswalk, which is a planning aid rather than a scoring guide.
Before working from the output, check three things. Every matrix row cites a page or section you can find in the document. The point totals in the crosswalk add up to what the funder published. And anything marked UNKNOWN has a name written next to it before the first draft circulates.