Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Comprehensive disease characterization across genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and pathways for systems-level understanding. Identifies therapeutic opportunities and biomarker candidates by integrating multi-layer molecular data. Use for full-omics disease deep-dive reports, mechanism mapping, and biomarker-and-target identification from multi-omics data.
.claude/skills/mims-harvard-tooluniverse-multiomic-disease-characterization/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 40% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 184% | 0% |
| case-13 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 75% | 0% |
| case-01 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | -20% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | 6% | 0% |
Characterize diseases across multiple molecular layers (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, pathways) to provide systems-level understanding of disease mechanisms, identify therapeutic opportunities, and discover biomarker candidates.
KEY PRINCIPLES:
Multi-omics disease characterization asks: what molecular layers are dysregulated? Genomic mutations → transcriptomic changes → proteomic effects → metabolomic consequences. Concordance across layers strengthens the finding. Discordance reveals regulatory complexity.
When uncertain about any scientific fact, SEARCH databases first rather than reasoning from memory. A database-verified answer is always more reliable than a guess.
When analysis requires computation (statistics, data processing, scoring, enrichment), write and run Python code via Bash. Don't describe what you would do — execute it and report actual results. Use ToolUniverse tools to retrieve data, then Python (pandas, scipy, statsmodels, matplotlib) to analyze it.
Apply when users:
NOT for (use other skills instead):
tooluniverse-drug-target-validationtooluniverse-adverse-event-detectiontooluniverse-disease-researchtooluniverse-variant-interpretationtooluniverse-gwas-* skillstooluniverse-systems-biology| Parameter | Required | Description | Example | |-----------|----------|-------------|---------| | disease | Yes | Disease name, OMIM ID, EFO ID, or MONDO ID | Alzheimer disease, MONDO_0004975 | | tissue | No | Tissue/organ of interest | brain, liver, blood | | focus_layers | No | Specific omics layers to emphasize | genomics, transcriptomics, pathways |
The pipeline runs 9 phases sequentially. Each phase uses specific tools documented in detail in tool-reference.md.
Resolve disease to standard identifiers (MONDO/EFO) for all downstream queries.
OpenTargets_get_disease_id_description_by_nameMONDO_0004975), NOT colonIdentify genetic variants, GWAS associations, and genetically implicated genes.
gwas_search_associations (use efo_id for precision, not free-text disease_trait), gwas_get_snps_for_gene, ClinVar, OpenTargets associated targetsgnomad_get_gene_constraints — gene constraint metrics (pLI, oe_lof) to interpret whether LoF variants are tolerated vs. haploinsufficientIdentify differentially expressed genes, tissue-specific expression, and expression-based biomarkers.
GTEx_get_expression_summary — baseline expression across 54 tissues (accepts gene_symbol directly)Map protein-protein interactions, identify hub genes, and characterize interaction networks.
UniProt_get_function_by_accession — protein function narrative (essential for mechanistic context)STRING_get_network (param: identifiers, species=9606), intact_get_interactions, HumanBaseIdentify enriched biological pathways and cross-pathway connections.
ReactomeAnalysis_pathway_enrichment — identifiers are newline-separated (\n), NOT space-separatedenrichr_gene_enrichment_analysis — param: gene_list (array), libs (array). NOTE: data field is a JSON string that needs parsingkegg_search_pathway — pathway keyword searchCharacterize biological processes, molecular functions, and cellular components.
Map approved drugs, druggable targets, repurposing opportunities, and clinical trials.
DGIdb_get_drug_gene_interactions — drug interactions by gene (param: genes as array). Often more comprehensive than OpenTargets for drug-gene data.EFO_0000384 for Crohn's, not MONDO — MONDO IDs may return null for drug queries)search_clinical_trials — query_term is REQUIREDIntegrate findings across all layers. See integration-scoring.md for full details.
Write executive summary, calculate confidence score, verify completeness.
integration-scoring.md for quality checklist and scoring formulaThese are the most common parameter pitfalls:
OpenTargets disease IDs: underscore format (MONDO_0004975), NOT colonSTRING protein_ids: must be array (['APOE']), not stringenrichr libs: must be array (['KEGG_2021_Human'])HPA_get_rna_expression_by_source: ALL 3 params required (gene_name, source_type, source_name)humanbase_ppi_analysis: ALL params required (gene_list, tissue, max_node, interaction, string_mode)expression_atlas_disease_target_score: pageSize is REQUIREDsearch_clinical_trials: query_term is REQUIRED even if condition is providedFor full tool parameters and per-phase workflows, see tool-reference.md.
All detailed content is in reference files in this directory:
| File | Contents | |------|----------| | tool-reference.md | Full tool parameters, inputs/outputs, per-phase workflows, quick reference table | | report-template.md | Complete report markdown template with all sections and checklists | | integration-scoring.md | Confidence score formula (0-100), evidence grading (T1-T4), integration procedures, quality checklist | | response-formats.md | Verified JSON response structures for key tools | | use-patterns.md | Common use patterns, edge case handling, fallback strategies |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | pass→fail | 19,559 | 10,331 | -47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,373 | 2,703 | -20% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | pass→pass | 12,479 | 23,678 | +90% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,964 | 6,218 | +217% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | pass→fail | 12,571 | 6,580 | -48% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,283 | 2,431 | +6% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | 35,515 | 7,219 | -80% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,201 | 2,529 | -59% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | 33,611 | 9,056 | -73% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,944 | 2,766 | -53% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | 31,540 | 6,922 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,481 | 2,470 | -55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | 9,991 | 10,320 | +3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,043 | 2,625 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 6,542 | 3,968 | -39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,132 | 2,721 | +140% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 11,260 | 4,671 | -59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,031 | 2,850 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 4,847 | 4,827 | -0% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 845 | 2,898 | +243% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 11,083 | 4,734 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,248 | 3,002 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 7,852 | 11,864 | +51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,242 | 3,529 | +184% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 10,848 | 12,141 | +12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,036 | 3,558 | +75% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | 3,511 | 6,423 | +83% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 554 | 2,241 | +305% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→fail | 20,179 | 7,019 | -65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,746 | 2,517 | -8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→fail | 10,414 | 5,540 | -47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,092 | 2,381 | +14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→fail | 16,013 | 7,994 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,815 | 2,546 | -10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→fail | 14,113 | 6,814 | -52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,229 | 2,432 | +9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | 12,488 | 5,589 | -55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,318 | 2,444 | +5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→fail | 20,027 | 7,755 | -61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,533 | 2,523 | -29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→fail | 16,359 | 7,787 | -52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,751 | 2,549 | -7% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→fail | 20,561 | 8,524 | -59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,128 | 2,522 | -39% | 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, and 7 counted toward the lift figure. The other 15 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of -27 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 7 comparable cases. 9 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are 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.