scientific-database-access
Skill1 starsChanged 53 days agoMITView on GitHub
Cross-domain / Research data access and provenance — Establish a working, authorized, versioned route to a scientific database or data source before declaring it inaccessible. WHEN a user says "validate database access", "check dataset availability", "API returns HTML instead of JSON", "database needs credentials", "find an official bulk mirror", "is this source down or gated?", "the legacy API is dead", "404 vs paywall", "record access evidence", or asks whether a scientific database (SABIO-RK, BRENDA, BioCyc/CyanoCyc, Rhea, ChEBI, MetaNetX, UniProt, AlphaFold DB, or a similar source) is reachable/usable, use this skill before writing an adapter, before declaring a source "unavailable", and before designing any access-failure fallback.
In this repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- alphafold-structure-provenanceSkill
- biochemical-identifier-crosswalkSkill
- biocyc-network-contextSkill
- brenda-enzyme-dataSkill
- build-research-paperSkill
- chat-session-experimentalSkill
- discovery-add-agentsSkill
- discovery-clarify-projectSkill
- discovery-dashboardSkill
- discovery-design-tasksSkill
- discovery-project-storySkill
- discovery-token-usageSkill
- engine-chat-experimentalSkill
- osti-literature-searchSkill
- sabio-rk-kineticsSkill
- scientific-evidence-qcSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 47
Probe access before planning any fallback: Never write or reuse a "this source is unavailable" branch until you have made a live request …
- Distinctive: line 62
Prefer the officially documented successor route over undocumented guesses.
- Very specific: line 75
Date every finding and supersede, don't overwrite: When a later probe contradicts an earlier one, record the new finding with its own date …
- Very specific: line 83
Use the fixed vocabulary in references/route-status-vocabulary.md (reachable_public, reachable_documented_auth, gated_credentialed, …
- Distinctive: line 113
Do not generalize a single project's or organism's finding into a database-wide rule.
- Distinctive: line 116
Never record secrets, credentials, session tokens, absolute local paths, or internal project/task identifiers in access evidence.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Scientific Database Access
Purpose
Scientific data sources expose several independent access routes (public website, documented API, official bulk export, third-party mirror, single-object lookup). One route being gated, dead, or credential-walled is not evidence that the others are. This skill is the general procedure for finding the correct authorized route, recording the evidence for that finding, and refusing to plan a fallback until access has actually been tested.
Anti-pattern this skill exists to prevent: pre-scripting an
unavailable_source fallback (or any other failure-branch plan) before
probing the source at all. Treating an assumed or historical failure as
equivalent to a fresh, dated probe is the single most common and most
expensive mistake in this space — see
references/anti-pattern-premature-fallback.md.
Procedure
- Enumerate routes before probing any of them. For the target source, list separately: interactive website, documented/official API, bulk export or dump, third-party mirror, and single-object/individual-record lookup. Do not let one route's status stand in for another's.
- Probe access before planning any fallback. Never write or reuse a "this source is unavailable" branch until you have made a live request (or read a current, dated contract) for the specific route in question. If a memory, task doc, or teammate claims a source is down/gated, treat that as a hypothesis to re-check, not a fact — cheap re-probes are almost always worth it (see step 6).
- Read the response, not just the status code. A
200 OKthat returns an HTML single-page-app shell is not a successful JSON API response. A404on a guessed identifier is not proof that the endpoint requires a subscription — it may just be a wrong ID. InspectContent-Type, body shape, and any login/CAPTCHA/paywall markers before concluding gated vs. dead vs. wrong-input. - Check official documentation and machine-readable contracts (OpenAPI/ WSDL/schema files, changelogs, developer docs, the site's own JS bundle if nothing else exists) before concluding a legacy service is discontinued. Prefer the officially documented successor route over undocumented guesses. Never bypass authentication, CAPTCHA, or license gates to "prove" access.
- Record every access claim using the fields in
references/access-matrix-template.md: route, request made, response evidence (status, content-type, body/checksum, headers), retrieval date, scope of the claim (which route/endpoint/organism/query — not "the whole database"), and what earlier claim (if any) this supersedes. - Separate technical reachability from license/use permission. A route returning data with no login prompt is not automatically a license to redistribute, bulk-harvest, or use commercially. Confirm current terms (license, rate limits, redistribution rights) as a distinct fact from "did the request succeed."
- Date every finding and supersede, don't overwrite. When a later probe
contradicts an earlier one, record the new finding with its own date and
an explicit
supersedespointer to the old claim. Keep the old claim visible as history — do not silently rewrite it. Re-probe cheaply before a downstream task relies on an old finding.
Route-status vocabulary
Use the fixed vocabulary in references/route-status-vocabulary.md
(reachable_public, reachable_documented_auth, gated_credentialed,
gated_licensed_bulk, gated_paid_subscription, dead_superseded,
dead_unconfirmed, blocked_bot_challenge, unknown_untested) instead of
ad-hoc words like "broken" or "inaccessible" — those words hide which route,
and whether it was actually tested.
Reusable assets
references/access-matrix-template.md— the per-source, per-route record to fill in for every access claim.references/route-status-vocabulary.md— the fixed status vocabulary.references/anti-pattern-premature-fallback.md— worked example of planning a failure branch before testing access, and how to avoid it.references/sources/*.md— source cards (SABIO-RK, BRENDA, BioCyc, Rhea, ChEBI/OLS4, MetaNetX, UniProt, AlphaFold DB) recording last-verified access routes and evidence pointers for each. These are illustrative starting points, not durable guarantees — re-verify before relying on them (see each card's "last verified" date).scripts/probe_and_manifest.py— a small, dependency-light HTTP probe helper that records the fields the access matrix needs (status, content-type, body sample/hash, headers, timestamp) to a JSON manifest, so probing and evidence-recording happen together instead of being reconstructed from memory afterward.
Scope boundaries
- This skill is about finding and recording authorized access, not about parsing or normalizing the data once retrieved (see a source-specific ingestion skill/adapter for that).
- Do not generalize a single project's or organism's finding into a database-wide rule. "This EC number had no hits for organism X" is not "this database has no data for X."
- Never record secrets, credentials, session tokens, absolute local paths, or internal project/task identifiers in access evidence. Redact before saving.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

