Will your application survive review?
Get a summary-statement-style critique before NIH writes the real one. Three reviewers score Factor 1 and Factor 2, rate your team and resources, and return a reviewer-style Overall Impact readiness range — with the prioritized fixes it would take to move the score.
Strengths — Disease burden is quantified; mechanistic gap is real and unaddressed by current therapies.
Weaknesses — Aim 2 relies on a single readout; add an orthogonal validation. Statistical framing for the primary endpoint is under-specified.
— WHY THIS EXISTS
Of NIH applications get funded. The rest come back with a summary statement you could have seen months earlier.
From submission to summary statement. Nine months to learn a Vertebrate Animals paragraph tanked your score.
What a consultant charges for one read. This is that read, on demand, without the calendar tango.
— WHAT YOU GET
Factor 1 — Importance
Scored 1–9, lower is better, the way NIH actually scores it. Significance and Innovation reasoned together, not as a checklist.
Factor 2 — Rigor & Feasibility
Scored 1–9. Approach, preliminary data, statistical framing, and the credibility of your milestones — assessed the way a study section would.
Factor 3 — Expertise & Resources
Rated Sufficient, or flagged as needing additional expertise or resources. Missing key personnel and gaps in institutional resources get called out by name.
Three reviewer personas
A primary reviewer, a secondary, and a discussant — each with their own emphasis and their own critique. Not one voice pretending to be three.
Overall Impact Readiness Range
A 1–9 reviewer-style score and plain-English readiness verdict, based on historical NIH-wide scoring conventions — not your IC's current payline. Advisory only — not a prediction of NIH's decision.
Prioritized improvement plan
Every finding tagged CRITICAL, HIGH_IMPACT, or POLISH — so you fix what moves the score, not what feels productive.
Council-stage risk flags
Human subjects, vertebrate animals, biohazards, foreign components — the things council can hold up even when the score is fundable.
Unlimited resubmission rounds
Paste the prior summary statement and the panel critiques your response — not just the new draft. The way A1 review actually works.
— HOW A ROUND WORKS
Paste your Specific Aims. Add whatever else you have — Research Strategy, preliminary data, biosketches, budget notes, Vertebrate Animals, Human Subjects, Commercialization Plan for SBIR/STTR. More sections, sharper critique. Specific Aims alone is a valid standalone review.
Thirty to ninety seconds later you have a summary statement: scored factors, three reviewer critiques with strengths and weaknesses, a reviewer-style Overall Impact readiness range, an advisory percentile indicator and readiness verdict, a ranked fix list, and any council-stage risks worth naming.
— HONESTLY
This is not the real study section.
It is a rigorous simulation of one, built on NIH's published review framework and scoring conventions. It has not yet been validated against funded outcomes — and we won't claim that until we can show the cohort (see the Trust page).
This does not write or edit.
Reviewers recognize AI-written prose. We score, review, diagnose, and check. We never write.
A good mock score is not a funded grant.
Paylines shift, panels vary, luck is real. We tell you what a fair panel would say. The panel you draw is its own thing.
— YOUR APPLICATION IS PRE-PUBLICATION IP
Unsubmitted Specific Aims are among the most confidential documents a company owns. We treat them that way.
- ›Your text is sent to a language model to run the review — that is what the product does — but it is never used to train that model, ours or theirs. Processing runs through our AI gateway provider (Lovable) and its upstream model provider (Google Gemini) under those providers' API terms.
- ›Your submissions are not shared with other users, other companies, or any third party.
- ›Encryption at rest is provided by our managed storage backend (Supabase). Your analysis is hard-deleted after 30 days unless you save it to your Vault, and on request at any time.
Read the summary statement before NIH writes it.
Paste your Aims. Ninety seconds. No card.
PREDICTED SCORES ARE ESTIMATES, NOT GUARANTEES OF FUNDING OR ACCEPTANCE. MOCK REVIEWS ARE INTENDED TO INFORM YOUR REVISION — THEY DO NOT REPLACE THE REAL STUDY SECTION.