Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Survey of LLM agents for biomedical scientific discovery
.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-llm-scientific-discovery-guide/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 9% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -16% | 0% |
| case-17 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -11% | 0% |
| case-19 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -7% | 0% |
| case-18 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | 53% | 0% |
A curated survey of how LLM-based agents are being applied to scientific discovery, with a focus on biomedical research. Covers hypothesis generation, experiment design, lab automation, literature synthesis, and multi-agent scientific collaboration. Tracks papers, tools, and frameworks across the spectrum from fully autonomous to human-in-the-loop systems.
LLM Agents for Scientific Discovery
├── Hypothesis Generation
│ ├── Literature-based (gap identification)
│ ├── Data-driven (pattern discovery)
│ └── Analogy-based (cross-domain transfer)
├── Experiment Design
│ ├── Protocol generation
│ ├── Parameter optimization
│ └── Control selection
├── Lab Automation
│ ├── Robot control (self-driving labs)
│ ├── Equipment programming
│ └── Data collection orchestration
├── Analysis & Interpretation
│ ├── Statistical analysis
│ ├── Visualization
│ └── Result interpretation
└── Communication
├── Paper writing
├── Presentation generation
└── Peer review simulation| System | Domain | Capability | |--------|--------|-----------| | AI Scientist | ML/AI | Full paper generation pipeline | | ChemCrow | Chemistry | Tool-augmented chemical reasoning | | Coscientist | Chemistry | Autonomous experiment execution | | BioPlanner | Biology | Experiment protocol generation | | MedAgent | Medicine | Clinical trial analysis | | GenAgent | Genomics | Gene expression analysis | | DrugAgent | Pharma | Drug interaction prediction |
python# LLM-based hypothesis generation pattern from scientific_agent import HypothesisGenerator generator = HypothesisGenerator( llm_provider="anthropic", knowledge_sources=["pubmed", "openalex"], ) hypotheses = generator.generate( domain="oncology", context="Recent findings show that gut microbiome " "composition correlates with immunotherapy response", constraints=[ "Must be testable in vitro", "Should involve specific bacterial species", "Must have measurable endpoints", ], num_hypotheses=5, ) for h in hypotheses: print(f"\nHypothesis: {h.statement}") print(f" Rationale: {h.rationale}") print(f" Supporting evidence: {len(h.evidence)} papers") print(f" Novelty score: {h.novelty_score:.2f}") print(f" Feasibility: {h.feasibility}")
python# Agent controlling automated experiments from scientific_agent import LabAgent agent = LabAgent( llm_provider="anthropic", equipment=["plate_reader", "liquid_handler", "incubator"], safety_constraints=["bsl2", "max_volume_1ml"], ) # Design and run experiment result = agent.run_experiment( objective="Determine IC50 of compound X against cell line Y", protocol_type="dose_response", parameters={ "compound": "Compound_X", "cell_line": "HeLa", "concentrations": "serial_dilution", "replicates": 3, "readout": "cell_viability", }, ) print(f"IC50: {result.ic50:.2f} uM") print(f"R-squared: {result.r_squared:.3f}") result.plot_dose_response("dose_response.pdf")
python# Agents with different scientific roles from scientific_agent import ScientificTeam team = ScientificTeam( agents={ "PI": {"role": "research_director", "expertise": "oncology"}, "Experimentalist": {"role": "experiment_design", "expertise": "cell_biology"}, "Analyst": {"role": "data_analysis", "expertise": "biostatistics"}, "Writer": {"role": "manuscript_writing", "expertise": "scientific_communication"}, }, ) # Collaborative research cycle project = team.start_project( title="Microbiome-immunotherapy interaction study", timeline_weeks=12, ) # Agents collaborate: PI directs → Experimentalist designs → # Analyst processes → Writer documents
markdown### Foundational Papers 1. "The AI Scientist" (Lu et al., 2024) — Fully automated ML research 2. "ChemCrow" (Bran et al., 2023) — Chemistry tool-use agent 3. "Coscientist" (Boiko et al., 2023) — Autonomous chemical research 4. "BioPlanner" (Biswas et al., 2024) — Biology protocol generation ### Surveys 5. "Scientific Discovery in the Age of AI" (Wang et al., 2023) 6. "Foundation Models for Science" (Bommasani et al., 2022) 7. "LLM Agents: A Survey" (multiple, 2024) ### Ethics & Limitations 8. "Dual-use concerns of AI in biology" (Sandbrink, 2023) 9. "Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas?" (Si et al., 2024)
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-07 | pass→pass | 8,756 | 3,743 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,237 | 1,953 | +58% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 17,930 | 18,843 | +5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,862 | 4,624 | +62% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 19,922 | 22,334 | +12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,902 | 4,883 | +68% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 20,192 | 29,405 | +46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,844 | 5,618 | +98% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 27,221 | 33,171 | +22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,608 | 6,289 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 18,715 | 27,471 | +47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,623 | 5,925 | +64% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 20,395 | 34,249 | +68% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,430 | 7,151 | +61% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | 24,328 | 35,729 | +47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,395 | 8,361 | +90% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 11,644 | 4,054 | -65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,938 | 1,912 | -1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 10,994 | 3,115 | -72% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,752 | 1,905 | +9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 11,498 | 13,059 | +14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,821 | 3,548 | +95% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | 24,811 | 20,721 | -16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,717 | 4,996 | +84% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 15,933 | 4,109 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,291 | 1,919 | -16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | 22,484 | 18,803 | -16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,563 | 5,015 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 21,331 | 22,288 | +4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,959 | 5,684 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 11,960 | 6,068 | -49% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,860 | 2,389 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 13,535 | 4,221 | -69% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,238 | 1,998 | -11% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→fail | 20,106 | 20,613 | +3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,749 | 4,217 | +53% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 12,180 | 1,857 | -85% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,816 | 1,681 | -7% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 41,540 | 18,376 | -56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 7,758 | 5,933 | -24% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 6,559 | 6,343 | -3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,147 | 2,525 | +120% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 9,864 | 8,412 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,766 | 2,890 | +64% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +14 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.