Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Retrieve and analyze AlphaFold predicted structures for a protein. Use when the user provides a specific UniProt Accession ID and wants structural confidence metrics (pLDDT), domain boundary analysis, or disorder assessment. Do not use if the user only has a protein name, gene name, or amino acid sequence — ask for a UniProt ID first.
.claude/skills/mkurman-alphafold-database-fetch-and-analyze/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-19 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 0% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 74% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 2% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -22% | 0% |
| case-15 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 11% | 0% |
uv: Read the uv skill and follow its Setup instructions to ensureuv is installed and on PATH.
this skill directory then (1) prominently notify the user to check the terms at https://alphafold.ebi.ac.uk/, then (2) create the file recording the notification text and timestamp.
Downloads AlphaFold predicted structures (mmCIF) and Predicted Aligned Error (PAE) matrices from the AlphaFold Database for a given UniProt ID, then performs automated heuristic analysis on structural confidence (pLDDT), intrinsically disordered regions, rigid domain boundaries, and inter-domain flexibility.
Do NOT use when:
UniProt ID) — ask them to look up the ID on UniProt.
database rather than accessing the database directly. The scripts automatically enforce the required rate limit gracefully.
yourself; always rely on the output provided by the script.
1. Fetch Structure Files
Downloads the .cif structure file, _predicted_aligned_error.json, and API metadata JSON (-metadata.json) for a UniProt ID. Handles fragment fallback for very large proteins.
Examples:
bashuv run scripts/fetch_structure.py P00520 -o /path/to/output/ uv run scripts/fetch_structure.py P04637 -o /path/to/custom_results/
Always specify -o with an absolute path or a path relative to the user's project root, never a path relative to the skill directory.
2. Analyze pLDDT Confidence
Reads pLDDT confidence metrics from a saved AFDB metadata JSON file (produced by fetch_structure.py) and prints a heuristic confidence assessment (structured, disordered, mixed).
Example:
bashuv run scripts/analyze_plddt.py ./data/AF-P00520-F1-metadata.json
3. Analyze PAE / Domain Boundaries
Reads a downloaded PAE JSON file and detects rigid domain boundaries using a sliding-window PAE heuristic.
Example:
bashuv run scripts/analyze_pae.py ./data/AF-P00520-F1-predicted_aligned_error_v6.json
The script prints analysis to stdout. Read it carefully and synthesize the results for the user:
any [!] WARNING lines. If the script reports that no canonical entry was found and an isoform was used, or if the protein is very large (>2700 AAs), you MUST prominently relay this warning to the user. Do not omit this warning.
the "PAE Structural Conclusion" into a single, cohesive overall summary. Describe the protein's overall folding confidence, the presence of disordered regions, and its rigid domain layout.
(especially Very Low vs. Very High).
specific residue ranges).
highly intrinsically disordered (e.g., high fraction of <50 pLDDT or lack of rigid domains), issue a separate, prominent warning. Advise the user against proceeding with whole-protein downstream structural analysis (like Foldseek or docking). If small ordered domains exist amidst the disorder, advise the user to restrict any future analysis strictly to those specific residue boundaries.
the downloaded mmCIF file.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-05 | pass→pass | 10,651 | 9,811 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,710 | 2,619 | +53% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 14,237 | 6,860 | -52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,197 | 2,190 | -0% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 11,401 | 7,446 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 583 | 1,607 | +176% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 20,754 | 7,129 | -66% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,707 | 1,377 | -63% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 10,600 | 5,992 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 702 | 1,408 | +101% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 9,293 | 9,762 | +5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,579 | 2,751 | +74% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 11,688 | 6,047 | -48% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,065 | 2,012 | -3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 8,586 | 6,105 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,222 | 1,892 | +55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | 10,633 | 8,570 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,147 | 1,409 | -34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 16,605 | 14,964 | -10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,526 | 2,580 | +2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 11,509 | 8,453 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,049 | 2,393 | +17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | 6,164 | 2,295 | -63% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 959 | 1,370 | +43% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 16,554 | 12,950 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,650 | 2,079 | -22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 9,404 | 5,492 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,426 | 1,883 | +32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 10,090 | 2,819 | -72% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,410 | 1,506 | +7% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 12,084 | 9,195 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,504 | 2,786 | +11% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 11,482 | 3,902 | -66% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,906 | 1,642 | -14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | 13,054 | 5,714 | -56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,999 | 1,919 | -4% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 18,253 | 12,160 | -33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,849 | 2,781 | -2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 14,097 | 9,623 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,251 | 1,860 | -17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 4,971 | 1,694 | -66% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 716 | 1,279 | +79% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | 15,358 | 8,658 | -44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,402 | 2,568 | +7% | 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 18 counted toward the lift figure. The other 4 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 +36 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 18 comparable cases.
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.