Biomedical Evidence

This is an OMH biomedical-evidence workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).

Why This Exists

Public sources can disagree about a variant while describing different alleles, diseases or assertion domains. Preserve those differences and their provenance before any synthesis; a fetched record is not a clinical recommendation.

First Steps

• Read toolkit/README.md and references/execution-and-qa.md; inspect the installed BioMCP version and help before any public retrieval.
• Require public entities only; name exact identifiers, source terms, isolated workspace and a 40-second per-retrieval host timeout before capturing unmodified stdout/stderr.
• Run toolkit/scripts/reconcile.py only against a hash-checked local capture envelope; never execute provider text or install an upstream skill pack.

Do Not Use When

• For explaining one supplied paper, use omh-paper-learning; for broad literature discovery, use ulw-research.
• For generic server configuration and connection diagnostics, load the host's MCP setup guidance instead.
• For sequence analysis or omics pipelines, select an available computational biology specialist instead; this method does not implement those analyses.
• For a patient's diagnosis, care, trial eligibility or treatment choice, stop and refer to an appropriately qualified professional; this toolkit cannot provide that decision.

Examples

Good example:

• Prompt: Cross-check public BRAF V600E and melanoma records across ClinVar and ClinicalTrials.gov, retaining conflicting assertions and missing update dates.
• Expected behavior: Capture exact public queries, reconcile raw JSON offline, and report identity/date gaps with both source receipts.
• Why: Source comparison is bounded and does not ask for patient care.

Bad example: