Update to GrantData

{
  "description": "Research an intervention or program idea through studies, implementation analogs, named delivery partners and payer evidence. Use for what works, who implements it, or what makes a pilot fundable.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 351
    }
  ],
  "name": "program-evidence",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: program-evidence\ndescription: Research an intervention or program idea through studies, implementation analogs, named delivery partners and payer evidence. Use for what works, who implements it, or what makes a pilot fundable.\n---\n\n# Program evidence\n\nRead [shared evidence rules](../azimuth-research/references/evidence-rules.md). Normalize the question by population, setting, delivery model, geography, outcomes and decision. Use Azimuth `search`/`fetch` for paper pointers and entity identities, then inspect the original study or evaluation with native host research. Paper metadata alone cannot establish a finding. If title search misses a relevant intervention, use native discovery and clearly identify which source came from which path.\n\nFor each useful study report the model, study design/strength, population/setting, outcomes, costs when observed and transfer limits. Distinguish causal evaluation, descriptive implementation and toolkit guidance. Deduplicate identical source URLs. Do not extrapolate a result to a different program or population without explaining the inference.\n\nFind direct and adjacent implementation analogs on official program pages, evaluations and partner announcements. Map named providers, intermediaries, government payers, lenders/investors, grantors and evaluators by their actual roles. Inspect program-specific payer/award evidence before saying who funded the intervention. A historical organization-level grant or a named study investor does not prove a program grant or current availability.\n\nUse issue tools when present for candidate discovery, followed by source verification. Keep ambiguous EINs unresolved. If no paper/program graph traversal is exposed, say the named participants came from original-source reading, then resolve their identities separately.\n\nProduce a concise evidence/analog table and a provisional pilot concept: learning question, actual model, partner requirements, implementation and staffing needs, budget basis, baseline/outcome measures, replication deliverable and gaps. Distinguish someone doing similar work from someone willing to pay for this applicant. For the broader case or proposal use `research-packet`; for current supporter qualification use `funder-review`.\n\n## In ChatGPT\n\nGrantData is used through the Apps connection; users mention @GrantData in a conversation. Treat the selected public connection as the scope of a GrantData answer. Every public tool is read-only. Do not use private mail, file, or consulting-source connectors to answer a GrantData-scoped request, even when the host account has access to them. If the user wants separate private-source research, distinguish that work and its source from GrantData's public evidence.\n\nUse ChatGPT's native web search for currentness checks and original sources, and cite the page actually checked.\n\nRoutine lookups return text-first results. The peer-funder comparison can render a table component when the host supports app views; still summarize the strongest patterns and the coverage limit in prose.\n\nThe guides are available as plugin skills and through `list_research_workflows` and `get_research_workflow`.\n\nUse ChatGPT's document abilities for a packet when the user asks, and state that nothing was saved to GrantData. The owner connection may expose a save tool, but it is outside the public plugin's capability. Never switch to it to satisfy a public connection save request or represent a needs-review candidate as graph publication or permanent strategy memory.\n\nThe public connection cannot email a funder or submit an application. If asked, state this limit and offer a draft after verifying the intended funder and opportunity. Historical grant observations alone do not establish a live application route.\n"
}