Grant writers and consultants
Bill for judgment, not for research
Your reputation is the product, so the constraint on your business is not skill, it is how many clients one person can carry without the work slipping. Quillify takes the research and the first draft. You keep the judgement, the relationships and the margin, and you carry more clients than you could before.
The premise, stated so you can reject it
Your ceiling is hours. You can carry a certain number of clients at the quality that keeps them, and past that the work either slips or you turn it down. Everything that follows is about which hours we can take and which we should not touch.
The hours worth taking are research, requirement extraction, compliance matrices, first drafts of boilerplate-adjacent sections, and the check for what the announcement asked for that the draft does not answer. The hours not worth taking are the ones where your judgment is the deliverable.
What survives contact with an expert
- It drafts from that client's documents, not from the internet
- Each organization has its own document room, and a draft is built from what is in it: their past proposals, their program descriptions, their budgets, their evaluation data. That is why what comes back is editable, not something you have to throw out and redo.
- Revisions are surgical
- Say “make the budget narrative more specific” or “add the new partnership” and it edits those sections and leaves the rest alone. Previous versions are kept. This is the difference between a tool you can use on a Thursday afternoon and one that makes you re-read a whole document to find out what it changed.
- The compliance matrix is the boring feature that saves you
- Every requirement, where it is addressed, the risk of missing it, and its deadline. Assignable to whoever is producing it. The failure mode it prevents is not a weak proposal, it is a compliant proposal that gets screened out over something nobody was tracking.
- Grading against the announcement, with a prioritized list
- It scores a draft the way a reviewer would, including a three-minute skim test, and hands back what is weak in the order worth fixing. Take the two that matter and ignore the rest. It is a coaching tool, not a verdict, and you are the one deciding.
- Multiple organizations, one login
- Switch between clients without switching accounts. Each client's documents stay scoped to that client, which is also the answer when a client asks you where their material lives.
The question you are actually going to ask
Yes, some funders have published policy on AI-written applications, and reviewers have opinions whether or not their agency has said anything. That is a live professional risk for you specifically, because your name is on the work.
We think you should read what the funders actually say before deciding. The exposure is much lower when the substance came from the client's own material and a professional edited the result, which is the workflow this product is built for.
What it costs against what you bill
A proposal starts from about 20 credits and scales with how much source material you attach, because reading is where the work goes. Revisions are much smaller, 5 to 15 credits, since they only re-read the sections you named. Pro is $250 a month with three seats.
You can do that arithmetic against your own rate faster than we can make an argument about it. The full price list is published, including the largest run we have measured, which cost a great deal more than the floor because a great deal was attached to it.
Where this fits in your practice
This does not replace you, and it is not built to: it is aimed at you, not your clients. The search and the first draft are the hours you cannot bill in full, and those are the hours it returns; the judgment, the relationships and the program design stay where your value lives.
White label and API access are not part of the product today. Consultancies run on seats, shared checklists and deliverables that carry your name, because you authored them.
We track the reporting dates an award letter creates, not the money it moves. Drawdowns, budget-versus-actual and cost allocation are not ours, and for some consultancies that administration is half the retainer.
Has anyone actually done this?
Consultants are among the hundreds of customers we have served. This one is the throughput story, and throughput is your business model: 26 separate proposals from a single customer, at, in their words, only a few minutes of additional effort each.
Rather than applying for grants directly, this customer wrote their services into other organizations' proposals, and won work from 26 of them.
Try it on a proposal you were going to write anyway.
Browsing and keyword search are free, and there is no card required.