From Awesome Stellar Community Fund
Simulates SCF prescreen checks on Build Award submissions for completeness, Stellar integration, eligibility, and budget issues. Use when reviewing a draft submission before the SCF round.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/awesome-stellar-community-fund:scf-prescreen-checkerThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Simulates the SCF prescreen that every Build Award submission goes through before it reaches the review panel. The prescreen is a manual completeness and eligibility check by the SCF team — it confirms your submission is complete, reviewable, and ready, not whether your idea is strong. This skill identifies issues that would get flagged at prescreen so you can fix them first.
Simulates the SCF prescreen that every Build Award submission goes through before it reaches the review panel. The prescreen is a manual completeness and eligibility check by the SCF team — it confirms your submission is complete, reviewable, and ready, not whether your idea is strong. This skill identifies issues that would get flagged at prescreen so you can fix them first.
Every Build Award submission goes through prescreening before it reaches the review panel — referred and non-referred submissions alike; a referral confers no prescreen exemption. The prescreen is a qualitative, manual check by the SCF team that confirms the submission is complete, reviewable, and meets the core eligibility criteria. It is not a judgment of the strength of your idea, and the SCF team may reach out with suggested edits so you can improve the submission before it is sent to the panel.
The most common prescreen issues:
Run through each check. For each item, report: PASS, FLAG (potential issue), or FAIL (likely prescreen failure).
| Check | What to Verify |
|---|---|
| Project description | Is there a clear description of what's being built? |
| Problem statement | Is the problem being solved articulated? |
| Target audience | Is the intended user or market defined? |
| Technical approach | Is there any technical detail beyond a concept? |
| Team information | Are team members named with roles? |
| Deliverables | Are deliverables listed for each tranche? |
| Budget | Is a budget provided with any breakdown? |
| Timeline | Are estimated dates or durations included? |
| Links | Do all provided links actually work? Test every one. |
FAIL condition: Any core section is entirely missing or blank. FLAG condition: A section exists but is vague, minimal, or incomplete.
| Check | What to Verify |
|---|---|
| Stellar mentioned | Does the submission explicitly reference Stellar? |
| Specific capabilities | Does it name specific Stellar features (Soroban, SEPs, anchors, asset issuance)? |
| Essential vs optional | Would this project work equally well without Stellar? |
| Technical specifics | Are there technical details about how Stellar is used? |
| On-chain component | Is there an on-chain element, or is Stellar only mentioned in passing? |
FAIL condition: Stellar is not mentioned, or the project has no meaningful Stellar dependency. FLAG condition: Stellar is mentioned but feels peripheral or interchangeable with other chains.
| Check | What to Verify |
|---|---|
| Project type | Is this a project type the SCF funds (software, infrastructure, protocol)? |
| Duplicate submission | Is this the same project submitted under a different name? |
| Prior funding | If previously funded, has the team delivered on past awards? |
| Budget range | Is the budget within the Build Award range (up to $150K)? |
FAIL condition: Ineligible project type or clear track mismatch. FLAG condition: Borderline eligibility or unclear track fit.
| Check | What to Verify |
|---|---|
| Coherence | Does the submission tell a coherent story from problem to solution? |
| Specificity | Are claims specific and concrete, or vague and generic? |
| Technical depth | Is there enough technical detail to evaluate the approach? |
| Budget proportionality | Is the budget roughly proportional to scope? |
| Writing quality | Is the submission comprehensible? |
FAIL condition: Submission is incoherent, entirely generic, or clearly AI-generated boilerplate. FLAG condition: Low specificity or thin technical detail.
## Prescreen Simulation: [Project Name]
### Overall: [LIKELY PASS / AT RISK / LIKELY FAIL]
### Completeness
- Status: [PASS / FLAG / FAIL]
- Issues: [List any missing or incomplete sections]
### Stellar Integration
- Status: [PASS / FLAG / FAIL]
- Issues: [Is Stellar essential or peripheral?]
### Eligibility
- Status: [PASS / FLAG / FAIL]
- Issues: [Any eligibility concerns]
### Quality Threshold
- Status: [PASS / FLAG / FAIL]
- Issues: [Specificity, coherence, depth concerns]
### Red Flags
- [List any triggered red flags]
### Prescreen Risk Assessment
[1-2 sentence summary]
npx claudepluginhub lumenloop/awesome-stellar-community-fund --plugin awesome-stellar-community-fundCreates, edits, and optimizes skills for Claude Code, including drafting, evaluating with test prompts, iterating on performance, and improving skill descriptions for better triggering accuracy.