medsci-agent: Skill for OpenCode

.opencode/skills/literature-review/SKILL.md

literature-review is a skill for OpenCode from omar-A-hassan/medsci-agent. It costs 18 tokens per session (496 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A repeatable method for finding, assessing, and summarising scientific studies. It uses defined search questions, database queries, documented selection steps, and PRISMA, a reporting standard for systematic reviews.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to plan searches across databases such as PubMed, record search details, select relevant studies, and prepare a PRISMA-style review.
Why use it?
It reduces ad-hoc searching and makes the review process easier to reproduce and check.

Skill for OpenCode

Written for OpenCode: installed under .opencode/.

This is omar-A-hassan/medsci-agent's own configuration. It tells OpenCode how to work on medsci-agent itself, so it is not a mod to install elsewhere. Copy it as a starting point and replace the rules that are about this project. Everything medsci-agent configures →

Reuse

Borrowing it

Nothing to install: this file belongs to omar-A-hassan/medsci-agent. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.

Copy the file
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/omar-A-hassan/medsci-agent/main/.opencode/skills/literature-review/SKILL.md
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/omar-A-hassan/medsci-agent

Made for: OpenCode.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

agentmods badge for literature-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/omar-a-hassan/medsci-agent/literature-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/omar-a-hassan/medsci-agent/literature-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/omar-a-hassan/medsci-agent/literature-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/omar-a-hassan/medsci-agent/literature-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>

Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.

agentmods 80×15 button for literature-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/omar-a-hassan/medsci-agent/literature-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/omar-a-hassan/medsci-agent/literature-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 18 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 496 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00018 $0.00496
Opus 5 $0.00009 $0.00248
Sonnet 5 $0.00004 $0.00099
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00050

Measured 12d ago against content hash 953b636d737e, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-12, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

literature-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

.opencode/skills/literature-review/SKILL.md · 50 lines

What it actually says

Systematic Literature Review

Overview

A systematic review follows a structured, reproducible methodology to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant evidence on a research question. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) provides the reporting standard.

Search Strategy

  1. Define PICO: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome.
  2. Build search query: Combine MeSH terms and free-text with Boolean operators.
  3. Select databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase.
  4. Document everything: Record date, database, exact query, and result count.

PubMed Query Example

("breast cancer"[MeSH] OR "breast neoplasms"[tiab])
AND ("immunotherapy"[MeSH] OR "checkpoint inhibitor"[tiab])
AND ("overall survival"[tiab] OR "progression-free survival"[tiab])

Programmatic PubMed Access

from Bio import Entrez
Entrez.email = "[email protected]"

handle = Entrez.esearch(db="pubmed", term="CRISPR AND cancer", retmax=100)
record = Entrez.read(handle)
pmids = record["IdList"]

handle = Entrez.efetch(db="pubmed", id=pmids[:10], rettype="xml")
records = Entrez.read(handle)

PRISMA Flow

  1. Identification: Total records from all databases.
  2. Screening: Remove duplicates, screen titles/abstracts.
  3. Eligibility: Full-text review against inclusion/exclusion criteria.
  4. Included: Final studies for qualitative/quantitative synthesis.

Key Details

  • Register protocol on PROSPERO before starting.
  • Use reference managers (Zotero, EndNote) for deduplication.
  • Risk of bias: use Cochrane RoB 2 (RCTs) or ROBINS-I (observational).
  • For meta-analysis, extract effect sizes (OR, HR, SMD) with confidence intervals.
  • Report PRISMA 2020 checklist and flow diagram in final publication.
  • Screening tools: Rayyan, ASReview (AI-assisted), Covidence.
Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 12d ago First seen · 50 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 953b636d737e

Subscribe to this mod's changes

literature-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository omar-A-hassan/medsci-agent (18 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 496 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

build-expression-tree

For symbolic computation: ASTs, mathematical expressions, code that manipulates code structure, expression transformations.

jimmc414/claude-code-plugin-marketplace · 24 tokens

find-convex-hull

For computational geometry: convex hull, point enclosure, polygon operations. Uses monotone chain algorithm with stack-based turn detection.

jimmc414/claude-code-plugin-marketplace · 31 tokens

dfam-check

Measure mesh files against Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM) rules and report printability findings per process (FDM, SLS, SLA/DLP, metal PBF, MJF). Use when the user asks whether a part is printable, wants overhang/wall-thickness/support analysis of an .stl, .obj, .ply, or .3mf mesh, wants a build-orientation…

earthtojake/text-to-cad · 111 tokens

peer-review

Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating…

xintaofei/codeg · 71 tokens

scientific-critical-thinking

Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review…

xintaofei/codeg · 63 tokens

tooluniverse-phylogenetics

Phylogenetic analysis — de novo multiple sequence alignment (Clustal Omega/MUSCLE/MAFFT via EBImsaalign) and neighbour-joining/UPGMA tree building (EBIbuildphylogenetictree) from your own sequences, plus tree analysis, treeness, saturation (PhyKIT), parsimony-informative sites, alignment gap analysis, DVMC…

mims-harvard/ToolUniverse · 155 tokens