---
name: grant-funder-landscape-scan
description: Research who funds a nonprofit organization and what those funders currently prioritize, then compare that against the organization's public messaging to surface gaps, alignment, or funding concentration risk. Trigger this when the user names a nonprofit and wants funder context before a client pitch, job interview, or strategy conversation. Nonprofit-specific — for a general "why is this organization hiring/buying now" read, use Org Signal Scanner instead.
---

# Grant & Funder Landscape Scan

Nonprofit strategy and messaging live downstream of funding. This skill researches who funds a given nonprofit, what those funders have publicly said they currently prioritize, and where there may be a mismatch or opportunity between the organization's public messaging and its funders' stated priorities.

## Workflow

1. **Get the input.** Need: the nonprofit's name. If the user has a specific role or pitch in mind, note it, since it sharpens what to flag in step 4, but the scan works without it.

2. **Identify known funders.** Search the organization's website (funder/partner lists, annual reports), its most recent Form 990 if publicly available, and press coverage of grants received. List each funder with a source — do not include a funder unless it traces to something actually found.

3. **Research each major funder's current priorities.** For the largest or most relevant 2-4 funders, search for their published funding priorities, focus areas, or recent public statements (foundation websites, annual reports, press releases). Flag any recent shift in focus area — this is often more useful than a static description.

4. **Compare funder priorities against the organization's current public messaging.** Does the nonprofit's website and communications reflect the language and priorities its funders care about? Describe any gap specifically, not in general terms.

5. **Note funding concentration.** If the organization appears to rely heavily on one or two funders, say so plainly. This is relevant context for anyone advising on strategy or messaging risk.

6. **Note source recency.** Funder relationships and grant amounts change. State the approximate date of the most recent source used and flag if the picture may be outdated.

7. **Self-check before delivering:**
   - Every funder name, grant amount, or stated priority traces to an actual source
   - Inference (what a funder might prioritize next) is clearly separated from what's actually been stated
   - No em dashes
   - If public funder information is sparse (common for smaller or newer nonprofits), that's stated directly rather than filled in with generic nonprofit-funding assumptions

## Output format

Deliver inline in chat:

- **Known funders:** list, each with a source
- **What they currently prioritize:** 2-4 bullets, one per major funder, sourced
- **Messaging gap or alignment:** 2-3 sentences
- **Funding concentration note:** 1 sentence, if relevant
- **Source dates:** noted so the user knows how current the picture is

## Notes

- Expect 6-10 searches per organization: funder identification, then priority research per major funder.
- Works from public information only — no access to or inference from private donor data.
- Pairs well with Content Voice Audit (the messaging side) and Org Signal Scanner (the broader organizational timing read).