---

name: openevidence-local-dev-loop description: >- Evaluate OpenEvidence product workflows safely with synthetic cases before any clinical rollout. Use when working with OpenEvidence in a healthcare organization. Trigger with "openevidence local dev loop", "OpenEvidence evaluation", or a matching workflow request. argument-hint: "[evaluation-plan-path] [feature]" allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, WebFetch, Write, Edit version: 1.14.0 author: Jeremy Longshore jeremy@intentsolutions.io license: MIT tags:

• saas
• openevidence
• evaluation
• synthetic-testing model: inherit effort: high compatibility: Designed for Claude Code; requires authorized OpenEvidence access and qualified clinical review for patient-care use

---

OpenEvidence Synthetic Workflow Evaluation Loop

Overview

Replace the nonexistent local developer loop with a repeatable browser/app evaluation process. Keep inputs minimal, separate observed facts from assumptions, and leave consequential decisions with the named accountable owner.

Prerequisites

• A clearly bounded workflow, accountable clinical owner, and organizational policy
• Current first-party OpenEvidence documentation and applicable institution agreements
• Synthetic or properly authorized minimum-necessary data

Tool Discipline

Use Read, Glob, and Grep to inspect supplied policies, plans, and evidence. Use WebFetch only for current first-party OpenEvidence documentation. Use Write or Edit only when the user requests a named deliverable with an approved destination. Never expose credentials, PHI, recordings, or unrestricted environment output.

Current Contract

• OpenEvidence does not publish a local runtime, sandbox SDK, or public test API in the audited documentation.
• Synthetic scenarios are the default evaluation input; real PHI requires the full approved data boundary.
• Evaluation tests workflow fitness and evidence review, not medical-device validation.

Authentication

Use only the official OpenEvidence web/mobile sign-in or an institution-approved access path. Do not invent API keys, OAuth clients, SDK credentials, service accounts, or private endpoints. Never ask a user to reveal a password, session token, cookie, or recovery code.

Instructions

1. Define feature, user role, expected workflow outcome, unacceptable failure, and clinical reviewer.
2. Create synthetic scenarios spanning routine, ambiguous, conflicting-evidence, and failure-path cases.
3. Read the current guide and record the model, feature, and surface used for each run.
4. Execute manually through the supported product, preserving only de-identified prompts, citations, and observations.
5. Have a qualified reviewer score traceability, applicability, uncertainty, and workflow burden.
6. Iterate one variable at a time and publish a go, revise, or stop recommendation.

Approval Boundaries

Do not create or share accounts; change access, roles, agreements, consent, retention, or security settings; enter PHI; record a conversation; copy content into another system; contact a patient; make a diagnosis or treatment decision; submit billing; transmit a support packet; run a production pilot; or represent vendor capabilities without explicit approval from the accountable owner. A qualified professional remains responsible for clinical decisions.

Output

Return scope, current first-party evidence and date, data classification, workflow or findings, citations reviewed, assumptions rejected, clinical and governance owners, approval state, unresolved risk, and the exact next action. Redact patient and credential data.

Error Handling

Condition	Response
No sandbox	Use synthetic inputs in an authorized account; do not probe private infrastructure.
Output non-deterministic	Score invariant qualities rather than exact wording.
Reviewer disagreement	Preserve both rationales and escalate to the clinical owner.

Examples

This compact example shows the minimum reviewable handoff; adapt fields to the approved workflow without adding sensitive data.

Input:

feature=Ask; cases=12 synthetic; reviewer=clinical lead; surface=web

Expected handoff:

runs=12; acceptable=9; revise=2; stop=1; next-change=prompt

Resources

• OpenEvidence official evidence register
• OpenEvidence User Guide
• OpenEvidence Terms of Use