tooluniverse-binder-discovery▌
mims-harvard/tooluniverse · updated Jun 2, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
Systematic discovery of novel small molecule binders using 60+ ToolUniverse tools across druggability assessment, known ligand mining, similarity expansion, ADMET filtering, and synthesis feasibility.
Small Molecule Binder Discovery Strategy
Systematic discovery of novel small molecule binders using 60+ ToolUniverse tools across druggability assessment, known ligand mining, similarity expansion, ADMET filtering, and synthesis feasibility.
LOOK UP DON'T GUESS - Always retrieve actual data from tools before drawing conclusions. Do not assume druggability, binding sites, or compound properties based on target class alone.
KEY PRINCIPLES:
- Report-first approach - Create report file FIRST, then populate progressively
- Target validation FIRST - Confirm druggability before compound searching
- Multi-strategy approach - Combine structure-based and ligand-based methods
- ADMET-aware filtering - Eliminate poor compounds early
- Evidence grading - Grade candidates by supporting evidence
- Actionable output - Provide prioritized candidates with rationale
- English-first queries - Always use English terms in tool calls. Respond in the user's language
Binding Site Reasoning (Start Here)
Before any tool call, reason about the target's structural biology:
Is the binding site a well-defined pocket (small molecule accessible) or a flat protein-protein interface (needs peptide/macrocycle)? This determines your screening strategy.
- Enzymes with active sites (proteases, kinases, ATPases): deep, well-defined pockets. Classic small molecule territory. Prioritize co-crystal structure search and known inhibitor scaffold analysis.
- GPCRs and ion channels: transmembrane pockets. Structure often available; start with GPCRdb and GtoPdb for known pharmacology.
- Nuclear receptors: deep hydrophobic pockets. Excellent small molecule tractability; ligand-based methods are well-powered.
- Protein-protein interfaces: flat, large contact surface. Small molecules rarely compete effectively unless there is a "hot spot" cavity. Check whether any allosteric pockets exist before committing to small molecule strategy. Warn the user if no pocket is found.
- Intrinsically disordered regions: essentially no small molecule approach. Redirect to peptide or degrader strategies.
- Scaffolding / adaptor proteins: assess co-crystal structures for unexpected pockets before declaring undruggable.
Use this reasoning to select phases and warn the user about challenges before executing a full workflow.
Critical Workflow Requirements
1. Report-First Approach (MANDATORY)
DO NOT show search process or tool outputs to the user. Instead:
-
Create the report file FIRST - Before any data collection:
- File name:
[TARGET]_binder_discovery_report.md - Initialize with all section headers from the template (see REPORT_TEMPLATE.md)
- Add placeholder text:
[Researching...]in each section
- File name:
-
Progressively update the report - As you gather data, update each section immediately.
-
Output separate data files:
[TARGET]_candidate_compounds.csv- Prioritized compounds with SMILES, scores[TARGET]_bibliography.json- Literature references (optional)
2. Citation Requirements (MANDATORY)
Every piece of information MUST include its source:
Example: *Source: ChEMBL via ChEMBL_get_target_activities (CHEMBL203)*
Workflow Overview
Phases in order:
- Phase 0: Tool verification (check parameter names with
get_tool_info) - Phase 1: Target validation — resolve IDs, assess druggability, identify binding sites, predict structure if needed
- Phase 2: Known ligand mining — ChEMBL, BindingDB, GtoPdb, PubChem BioAssay, chemical probes; SAR analysis
- Phase 3: Structure analysis — PDB co-crystals, EMDB (membrane targets), binding pocket characterization
- Phase 3.5: Docking validation — dock reference inhibitor to validate pocket geometry
- Phase 4: Compound expansion — similarity/substructure search (seeds: 3-5 diverse actives) + de novo generation
- Phase 5: ADMET filtering — physicochemical, bioavailability, toxicity, CYP, structural alerts
- Phase 6: Candidate docking and prioritization — score and rank top 20
- Phase 6.5: Literature evidence — PubMed, EuropePMC, OpenAlex
- Phase 7: Report synthesis and delivery
Phase 0: Tool Verification
CRITICAL: Verify tool parameters before calling unfamiliar tools.
tool_info = tu.tools.get_tool_info(tool_name="ChEMBL_get_target_activities")
Common parameter corrections (verify with get_tool_info if uncertain):
OpenTargets_*:ensemblId(camelCase);ADMETAI_*:smilesmust be a listNvidiaNIM_alphafold2:sequencenotseq;NvidiaNIM_genmol: SMILES must contain[*{min-max}]NvidiaNIM_boltz2:polymers=[{"molecule_type": "protein", "sequence": "..."}]
Phase 1: Target Validation
1.1 Identifier Resolution
Resolve all IDs upfront and store for downstream queries:
1. UniProt_search(query=target_name, organism="human") -> UniProt accession
2. MyGene_query_genes(q=gene_symbol, species="human") -> Ensembl gene ID
3. ChEMBL_search_targets(query=target_name, organism="Homo sapiens") -> ChEMBL target ID
4. GtoPdb_get_targets(query=target_name) -> GtoPdb ID (if GPCR/channel/enzyme)
1.2 Druggability Assessment
Use multi-source triangulation:
OpenTargets_get_target_tractability_by_ensemblID(ensemblId)- tractability bucketDGIdb_get_gene_druggability(genes=[gene_symbol])- druggability categoriesOpenTargets_get_target_classes_by_ensemblID(ensemblId)- target class- For GPCRs:
GPCRdb_get_protein+GPCRdb_get_ligands+GPCRdb_get_structures - For antibody landscape:
TheraSAbDab_search_by_target(target=target_name)
Decision Point: If no tractability data and binding site reasoning suggests PPI or disordered region, explicitly warn the user before proceeding.
1.3 Binding Site Analysis
ChEMBL_search_binding_sites(target_chembl_id)get_binding_affinity_by_pdb_id(pdb_id)for co-crystallized ligandsInterPro_get_protein_domains(accession)for domain architecture
1.4 Structure Prediction (NVIDIA NIM)
Requires NVIDIA_API_KEY. Two options:
- AlphaFold2:
NvidiaNIM_alphafold2(sequence, algorithm="mmseqs2")- high accuracy, 5-15 min - ESMFold:
ESMFold_predict_structure(sequence)- fast (~30s), max 1024 AA
pLDDT guidance: >=90 very high confidence, 70-90 confident, <70 use with caution. Low pLDDT in the putative binding region undermines docking reliability.
Phase 2: Known Ligand Mining
Priority order for bioactivity data:
ChEMBL_get_target_activities- curated, SAR-readyBindingDB_get_ligands_by_uniprot- direct Ki/Kd with literature linksGtoPdb_search_ligands- pharmacology focus (GPCRs, channels)PubChem_search_assays_by_target_gene- HTS screens, novel scaffoldsOpenTargets_get_chemical_probes_by_target_ensemblID- validated probes
Key steps:
- Filter to IC50/Ki/Kd < 10 uM; retrieve molecule details for top actives
- Identify chemical probes and approved drugs
- Analyze SAR: common scaffolds, key modifications
- Check off-target selectivity:
BindingDB_get_targets_by_compound
Phase 3: Structure Analysis
Tools:
PDB_search_similar_structures(query=uniprot, type="sequence")- find PDB entriesget_protein_metadata_by_pdb_id(pdb_id)- resolution, methodget_binding_affinity_by_pdb_id(pdb_id)- co-crystal ligand affinitiesget_ligand_smiles_by_chem_comp_id(chem_comp_id)- ligand SMILES from PDBemdb_search(query)- cryo-EM structures (prefer for GPCRs, ion channels)alphafold_get_prediction(qualifier)- AlphaFold DB fallback
Phase 3.5: Docking Validation (NVIDIA NIM)
If PDB + SDF available: use get_diffdock_info(protein=PDB, ligand=SDF, num_poses=10).
If only sequence + SMILES: use NvidiaNIM_boltz2(polymers=[...], ligands=[...]).
Dock a known reference inhibitor first to validate the binding pocket geometry before running candidates.
Phase 4: Compound Expansion
4.1-4.3 Search-Based Expansion
Use 3-5 diverse actives as seeds, similarity threshold 70-85%:
ChEMBL_search_similar_molecules(molecule=SMILES, similarity=70)PubChem_search_compounds_by_similarity(smiles, threshold=0.7)ChEMBL_search_substructure(smiles=core_scaffold)STITCH_get_chemical_protein_interactions(identifier=gene, species=9606)
4.4 De Novo Generation (NVIDIA NIM)
GenMol - scaffold hopping with masked regions:
NvidiaNIM_genmol(smiles="...core...[*{3-8}]...tail...[*{1-3}]...", num_molecules=100, temperature=2.0, scoring="QED")
MolMIM - controlled analog generation:
NvidiaNIM_molmim(smi=reference_smiles, num_molecules=50, algorithm="CMA-ES")
Phase 5: ADMET Filtering
Apply sequentially (all tools accept smiles=[list]):
- Physicochemical:
ADMETAI_predict_physicochemical_properties- Lipinski violations <= 1, QED > 0.3, MW 200-600 - Bioavailability:
ADMETAI_predict_bioavailability- oral bioavailability > 0.3 - Toxicity:
ADMETAI_predict_toxicity- AMES < 0.5, hERG < 0.5, DILI < 0.5 - CYP:
ADMETAI_predict_CYP_interactions- flag CYP3A4 inhibitors - Alerts:
ChEMBL_search_compound_structural_alerts- no PAINS
Include a filter funnel summary in the report showing pass/fail counts at each stage.
Phase 6: Candidate Docking & Prioritization
Composite score: docking confidence (40%) + ADMET score (30%) + similarity to known active (20%) + novelty (10%, not in ChEMBL + novel scaffold bonus).
Evidence tiers for candidates:
- T1 (3 stars): Experimental IC50/Ki < 100 nM
- T2 (2 stars): Docking within 5% of reference OR IC50 100-1000 nM
- T3 (1 star): >80% similarity to T1 compound
- T4 (0 stars): 70-80% similarity, scaffold match only
- T5 (no stars): Generated molecule, ADMET-passed, no docking
Deliver top 20 candidates with: Rank, ID, SMILES, docking score, ADMET score, overall score, source, evidence tier.
Phase 6.5: Literature Evidence
PubMed_search_articles(query="[TARGET] inhibitor SAR")- peer-reviewedEuropePMC_search_articles(query, source="PPR")- preprints (not peer-reviewed)openalex_search_works(query)- citation analysis
Fallback Chains
Target ID: ChEMBL_search_targets -> GtoPdb_get_targets -> "Not in databases"
Druggability: OpenTargets tractability -> DGIdb druggability -> target class proxy
Bioactivity: ChEMBL -> BindingDB -> GtoPdb -> PubChem BioAssay -> "No data"
Structure: PDB -> EMDB (membrane) -> NvidiaNIM_alphafold2 -> NvidiaNIM_esmfold -> AlphaFold DB -> "None"
Similarity: ChEMBL similar -> PubChem similar -> "Search failed"
Docking: get_diffdock_info -> NvidiaNIM_boltz2 -> similarity-based scoring
Generation: NvidiaNIM_genmol -> NvidiaNIM_molmim -> similarity search only
Literature: PubMed -> EuropePMC (preprints) -> OpenAlex
GPCR data: GPCRdb_get_protein -> GtoPdb_get_targets
Programmatic Access (Beyond Tools)
When ToolUniverse tools return limited compound sets, access chemical databases directly:
import requests, pandas as pd
# PubChem batch property retrieval (up to 100 CIDs per call)
cids = "2244,5988,3672"
url = f"https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/rest/pug/compound/cid/{cids}/property/MolecularWeight,XLogP,TPSA,HBondDonorCount,HBondAcceptorCount/JSON"
props = pd.DataFrame(requests.get(url).json()["PropertyTable"]["Properties"])
# ChEMBL bioactivity bulk download for a target
target_id = "CHEMBL203" # EGFR
url = f"https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembl/api/data/activity.json?target_chembl_id={target_id}&pchembl_value__gte=5&limit=1000"
activities = requests.get(url).json()["activities"]
df = pd.DataFrame(activities)[["molecule_chembl_id", "canonical_smiles", "pchembl_value", "standard_type"]]
# Lipinski Rule of 5 filtering (no RDKit needed)
lipinski = props[(props["MolecularWeight"] <= 500) & (props["XLogP"] <= 5) &
(props["HBondDonorCount"] <= 5) & (props["HBondAcceptorCount"] <= 10)]
# SDF download from PubChem (for docking input)
sdf_url = f"https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/rest/pug/compound/cid/{cids}/SDF"
sdf_content = requests.get(sdf_url).text
See tooluniverse-data-wrangling skill for format cookbook and pagination patterns.
NVIDIA NIM Runtime Notes
AlphaFold2: 5-15 min (async, max ~2000 AA). ESMFold: ~30 sec (max 1024 AA). DiffDock: ~1-2 min/ligand. Boltz2: ~2-5 min. GenMol/MolMIM: ~1-3 min.
Always check: import os; nvidia_available = bool(os.environ.get("NVIDIA_API_KEY"))
For large expansions (>500 compounds): batch in chunks of 100, prioritize top candidates for docking.
Reference Files
- WORKFLOW_DETAILS.md - Phase-by-phase procedures, code patterns, screening protocols
- TOOLS_REFERENCE.md - Complete tool reference with parameters and fallback chains
- REPORT_TEMPLATE.md - Report file template and evidence grading system
- EXAMPLES.md - End-to-end workflow examples (EGFR, novel target, lead optimization)
- CHECKLIST.md - Pre-delivery verification checklist
How to use tooluniverse-binder-discovery on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add tooluniverse-binder-discovery
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches tooluniverse-binder-discovery from GitHub repository mims-harvard/tooluniverse and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate tooluniverse-binder-discovery. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /tooluniverse-binder-discovery) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
User Story & Requirements Generation
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Competitive Analysis
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Roadmap Prioritization
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Stakeholder Communication
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
- ›Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
- ›Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
- ›Stakeholder contact information and communication channels
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Installation Steps
- 1.Install product management skill
- 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
- 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
- 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
- 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
- 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
- 7.Share effective prompts with product team
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
- ⚠Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
- ⚠Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
- ⚠Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
- ⚠Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
- +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
- +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
- +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
- +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
- +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition
✗ Don't
- −Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
- −Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
- −Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
- −Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
- −Don't ignore company-specific context and culture
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
- ★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
- ★Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
- ★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
Learning Path▌
- 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
- 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
- 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
- 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.6★★★★★27 reviews- ★★★★★Pratham Ware· Dec 8, 2024
tooluniverse-binder-discovery fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Nikhil Mehta· Sep 21, 2024
Keeps context tight: tooluniverse-binder-discovery is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Sakshi Patil· Sep 13, 2024
tooluniverse-binder-discovery is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Ren Sanchez· Sep 1, 2024
tooluniverse-binder-discovery fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Mateo Sharma· Aug 28, 2024
tooluniverse-binder-discovery reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Dev Torres· Aug 20, 2024
We added tooluniverse-binder-discovery from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Arya Anderson· Aug 12, 2024
tooluniverse-binder-discovery is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Chaitanya Patil· Aug 4, 2024
Keeps context tight: tooluniverse-binder-discovery is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Piyush G· Jul 23, 2024
tooluniverse-binder-discovery has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Henry Okafor· Jul 19, 2024
I recommend tooluniverse-binder-discovery for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
showing 1-10 of 27