Every proposal, outlined, reviewed, tracked. Before reviewers see it.
Atom Proposals manages every grant your team is working on. It auto-builds a guide for every RFP, outlines each section from your prior work, and runs an AI proposal review against funder criteria.
CAREER: Faculty Early Career Development
R01: Neuroinflammation in AD
K23: Career development
CAREER: Imaging in pediatric brain
R21: Microglia in aging
CDMRP: AD translational
“This is just mind-blowing for me. This has always been done manually, so this is super helpful and time saving.”
The whole proposal lifecycle, in one workspace
Atom turns every saved opportunity into a structured proposal workspace. The pipeline shows what's drafting, in review, and submitted. Each proposal arrives with a built guide, section templates, and an AI reviewer ready to evaluate the draft against the funder's actual scoring rubric.
Every proposal your team is working on, in one view
Atom is the system of record for the proposals your team is moving through. Every saved opportunity becomes a tracked proposal that moves from Drafting to In Review to Submitted, with the PI, deadline, agency, and award size on the card.
- Filter the board or list view by PI, agency, deadline, mechanism, or stage
- Each card shows AI-outlined aims, deadline, and the latest reviewer flag
- Submitted proposals stay in the pipeline so your team can track scoring and resubmissions
Every RFP becomes a structured project guide
Atom reads each solicitation end-to-end: every page of the call, the program guidelines, footnotes, and supplementary docs. It turns all of it into a clean guide covering funder, deadline, award structure, eligibility, required documents, and the funder's stated priorities. Generate it whenever you need it, in a few minutes.
- Eligibility flags surface before drafting starts (career stage, citizenship, prior funding)
- Required documents auto-tracked, with templates for each
- Funder priorities and reviewer rubric extracted from the call
Every draft reviewed against the funder's actual rubric
Atom evaluates each section the way reviewers will: innovation, approach, preliminary data, broader impacts, and the formatting specs that quietly cost points. Every flag cites the rubric criterion, the line in the draft, and a concrete fix.
- Reviews innovation, approach, aims testability, preliminary data, broader impacts
- Catches the formatting and compliance issues reviewers quietly mark down
- Every flag is concrete: cites the line, the rubric criterion, and the suggested fix
Section outlines, built from the funder guide and your prior work
Atom outlines each required section, from Specific Aims to Broader Impacts, pulling from the PI's publications, prior funding, and the funder's stated priorities. Faculty start from a working outline, not a blank page.
- Section-by-section outlines tuned to the funder's review criteria
- Citations pulled in automatically from the PI's prior work
- Atom rewrites or extends any section in-line, on request
Researchers, collaborators, research administration, and AI in one workspace
Atom replaces the email chain between faculty and research administration with a shared workspace. Researchers and their collaborators edit the draft together, the AI Reviewer scores each section against the funder's rubric, and research administrators review the same draft in the same view.
- Researchers and collaborators edit drafts side by side, section by section
- AI Reviewer and research administration comments live on the same draft
- Admins greenlight the final draft once it meets the funder's rubric
Proposals, in their words
“Atom is taking the burden away from our pre-award unit because they're guiding the PIs in the submission process.”
“If you're at a PUI or a small office like mine, Atom makes operations far more efficient. It's a labor-saving device.”
Before you book a demo
Atom reviews against the funder's stated scoring rubric: innovation, approach, aims testability, preliminary data sufficiency, broader impacts. It also checks formatting specs that NSF and NIH study sections quietly downgrade for (margins, font, heading style, page limits). Every flag cites the rubric criterion, the line in the draft, and a suggested fix.
Atom is grounded in the actual funder solicitation, the program guidelines, the PI's profile, and the institution's prior submissions to the same mechanism. The reviewer reads the way a study section reads, weighing innovation vs. significance vs. approach. It is not a generic 'how can I improve this essay' pass.
No. Atom outlines each section so faculty don't begin from a blank page, and reviews revisions against the funder's rubric before submission. The PI is still the author. Most faculty use Atom's outlines as scaffolding, keeping the framing and rewriting the science in their own voice.
That's who Atom is built for. Atom turns the solicitation into a section-by-section guide, outlines each section from the RFP and the PI's own work, and the AI Reviewer critiques every draft against the real review criteria (NIH study section criteria for R01s, NSF merit review for CAREER) before it goes out. The PI still writes the science; Atom supplies the experienced reader they don't have down the hall.
Yes. Research administration teams use the pipeline view across every active proposal in the institution to triage deadlines, route reviews, and check that submission packages are complete. The PI can be looped in as needed, but admins don't depend on faculty engagement to get visibility into the pipeline.
Every funder Atom Discovery covers: all federal agencies (NIH, NSF, DOE, DOD, USDA, NASA, NEH, DARPA), 20,000+ private foundations, and limited submissions. The reviewer is tuned per agency: NIH study section criteria for R-series, NSF merit review for CAREER and core programs, DOD CDMRP rubrics, and foundation-specific guidance for Sloan, HHMI, and others.
Discovery surfaces the right grant. Collaborators assembles the right team. Proposals turns the team's work into a submission. From idea to written proposal, in one workspace.