How to write a strong partnering listing for each listing type

Last updated: October 20, 2026

Each listing type answers a different question for an industry partner. A technology listing has to show that something works and what's on offer. A facilities and testing listing has to show what a partner can book and how fast. Pick the type that matches what you're offering, then write to the question that type answers.

The examples below are real partnering listings on Halo. Open one next to your draft and compare.

For the steps to create a listing, see Partnering Listings.

What strong listings have in common

  • A title that names what the partner gets. "Thermal design and analysis for high-power-density electronics" works. A lab name or a broad field doesn't.

  • Specifics a partner can check. Methods, instruments, standards, scale, and numbers with the conditions they were measured under.

  • Proof. Funded projects, field or pilot data, deployments, publications, or patents.

  • A clear next step. Say what you're offering, what happens first, and what the partner gets back.

  • Only the partnership models you actually offer. Selecting every option makes it harder for a partner to tell what you want.

Technology

Use this type for a project, product, or IP-backed innovation you're ready to license, sell, or co-develop. A technology listing answers: what is it, does it work, and how can I license, buy, or co-develop it?

A structure that works:

  • Problem: the limit current options hit, in two or three sentences

  • How it works: the mechanism, in plain terms

  • Performance: numbers, with the test conditions and what you compared against

  • Readiness: TRL and what's been validated so far

  • IP status: patents granted, filed, or none

  • Opportunity: what's on offer (exclusive or non-exclusive license, co-development, supply) and any territory or field limits

Examples and what they do well:

  • Pseudocapacitive Carbon Molecular Crystals for Ultrafast-Charging Battery Anodes, Montana State University. It frames the problem in terms a buyer already uses: the fast-charging targets graphite can't meet. It explains the mechanism in plain language, then backs it with numbers: 10 minutes to 80% charge and over 97% capacity retention across 600 cycles. It closes with exactly what's available (licensing, plus research collaboration) and the provisional patent number.

  • DropForm: AI-guided formulation of bio-based and recycled materials, Natural Negative. It explains the platform as four numbered steps seen from the partner's side: define the target, screen candidates in silico, validate on the partner's own equipment, and feed results back. A "Proof to date" section follows with numbers a partner can weigh, including over 85% prediction accuracy, trial materials within 10% of petroleum-plastic benchmarks, and Innovate UK funding.

  • SeaTex seaweed fiber for RTD beverages, Marine Biologics. A later-stage startup listing at TRL 8. It opens with the problem a beverage formulator already knows: keeping protein stable through UHT processing usually takes a stack of gums, buffers, and emulsifiers. It reports pilot-scale validation in dairy and plant-based protein drinks, gives an inclusion rate under 0.5%, and states the cost-in-use reduction it targets (10% to 30%). It ends with a concrete path: formulation trials in 2 to 4 weeks, then pilot-scale validation in 4 to 8 weeks.

Early-stage projects belong here too. Say plainly what's been shown so far and what a partner's support would test next.

Skip claims without numbers ("100% stable", "revolutionary") and anything you plan to build but haven't yet.

Consulting service

Use this type for bespoke expertise you apply to a partner's problem, such as consulting, design, or development work. A consulting service listing answers: what problem do you solve, who is it for, how does an engagement run, and what do I get at the end?

A structure that works:

  • One-line summary: the service and who it's for

  • What it covers: the problems you take on and the methods or tools you use

  • How it's delivered: how work starts, typical scope and timeline, and the contract route (fee-for-service, sponsored research)

  • Deliverables: reports, models, data, recommendations

  • Best fit for: the teams or situations you serve best

  • Track record: past programs, clients, or results you can name

Examples and what they do well:

  • Thermal design and analysis for high-power-density electronics, power modules, and electric machines, University of Arkansas. It's organized into four labeled parts: what it covers, how it's delivered, best fit, and track record. It names the actual tools and test rigs, explains that work starts with a scoping call and a written statement of work, and says which contract route fits short tasks versus larger projects. Past programs with Google and NASA do the credibility work.

  • Cross-disciplinary feasibility studies and technical due diligence for R&D decisions, Alpha-AQL. The first sentence is the whole offer: a fixed-scope study on whether something can work, what could make it fail, and what to test next. It then names the kind of problem it's built for, questions that cross departments, and explains how the work breaks a question into testable assumptions.

  • Fermentation for Nutritional Improvement and Valorization of Plant-Based Ingredients, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. It lists the specific services on offer, from lab-scale feasibility studies to preliminary scale-up evaluation, then says what a partner walks away with: experimental datasets, validated fermentation protocols, analytical results, and a technical report. It closes by naming the organizations it suits best, so a food or feed ingredient team can tell quickly that it's for them.

Write it as a standing offer, not as an answer to one company's problem.

Facilities & testing

Use this type for equipment, lab space, testing, or pilot-scale infrastructure partners can access or book. A facilities and testing listing answers: what can I access, how capable is it, can I run it myself or send samples, and how long will it take?

A structure that works:

  • One-line summary: what the facility does and who can use it

  • Available services

  • Equipment and instruments: make, model, and the specs that matter (resolution, scale, throughput)

  • Capacity and turnaround

  • Access and booking: self-serve with training, staff-run analysis, or both, and how to get started

Examples and what they do well:

  • Electron Microscopy Core, University of Illinois Chicago. The opening line says who can use the core and that partners can either train to run instruments themselves or send samples for staff-run analysis. Every instrument is listed by make and model with the specs that matter, and a turnaround section sets expectations (2 to 3 days for life-science sample processing).

  • SSF R&D and Process Development: Bench to 500kg Pilot Scale-Up, Solid Fermentation Innovation. The scale is right in the title. The description walks through bench, pilot (10 to 500 kg per batch), and downstream work in the order a project would move through them, so a partner can see where their project would start.

  • Wind Tunnel Testing for Air Filter Efficiency and Pressure Drop, University of Alberta. It says exactly what gets measured (particle-removal efficiency and pressure drop at set airflow rates), what the service includes from test planning through the technical report, and which companies it suits. It also tells a partner what to send to get started: filter specifications, the measurements needed, and a timeline.

Grant collaboration opportunity

Use this type for an open call for partners to co-apply for funding or get involved as a supporting participant. A grant collaboration listing answers: which program, what role do you want a partner to play, what do you bring, and how much lead time do you need?

A structure that works:

  • The opportunity: the programs or specific calls, and the topic

  • What you bring: funded work, readiness, data, facilities, and your track record with this funder

  • What you're looking for in a partner: the roles you're open to, such as a letter of support, co-applicant, or subaward, and what the partner contributes

  • Timeline: how far before a deadline a partner needs to start

  • Terms: how IP and publication will be agreed

Examples and what they do well:

  • Academic and industry co-application for NIH, NSF, DOD, and ARPA-H proposals, Missouri University of Science & Technology. It uses three plain sections: the opportunity, what the researcher brings, and what they want from a partner. "What I bring" leads with proof (an NSF-funded platform at TRL 5 with animal-model results), and the listing states lead times: 2 to 3 weeks for a letter of support, 8 to 12 weeks for a named co-applicant.

  • Horizon Europe co-applicant: nasal-fluid sampling and multi-omics data partner, Diag-Nose.io. It names the exact Horizon Europe call topics it's targeting, so a consortium coordinator can match it to a proposal right away. It lists the partner types it wants and what it adds: a registered sampling device and an existing cohort of about 1,200 respiratory patients.

  • Horizon Europe co-applicant: measuring directional error in agricultural AI, CannAI Solutions. It names a specific problem and backs its readiness with hard numbers: a model trained on 259,000 labeled images with 94.3% held-out accuracy, and 10,000 GPU hours already granted. It's candid about timing too: the 2027 work program isn't published yet, so it's building the consortium now and says it's open to joining as a beneficiary or subcontractor.

Your listing is public and indexed across Halo, so don't address it to a single company.

Before you publish

Read your listing as an industry partner who has never heard of you. If they can't tell within a minute what you're offering, whether it works, and what to do next, tighten it.

Questions? Email support@halo.science.