Project Charter: OpenEvidence API / Hermes Integration¶
Summary¶
Determine whether OpenEvidence has an API and whether Hermes can or should use it for VIM workflows.
Why this matters¶
OpenEvidence may be valuable as a clinical evidence retrieval/citation layer. We need to distinguish official enterprise/API access from unofficial browser/MCP approaches and decide whether it belongs as a Hermes model provider, a tool, or a separate reviewed workflow.
Owner / stakeholders¶
- Executive owner: Jeremy Landis
- Robbie role: research, evaluate integration path, maintain project brain, surface decisions/risks.
- Clinical owner/reviewer: TBD doctor/clinical reviewer.
- Engineering owner: TBD.
- Security/compliance owner: TBD.
- Product/design owner: TBD if workflow reaches user-facing product.
Scope¶
In scope¶
- Verify whether official OpenEvidence API/enterprise access exists.
- Identify authentication, data/privacy, citation, and integration model.
- Assess whether Hermes can integrate via model provider, custom provider, tool, MCP, or browser automation.
- Recommend safe VIM path for non-PHI exploration vs production/clinical use.
Out of scope¶
- Sending PHI to OpenEvidence.
- Production clinical workflow integration without legal/security/clinical approval.
- Unofficial scraping/bypassing terms of service.
Success criteria¶
- Clear answer on official API availability and route to access.
- Recommendation: model provider vs retrieval tool vs no integration.
- Explicit risk list and required approvals.
- Next action list for Jeremy/engineering/security/clinical.
Constraints¶
- No PHI by default.
- Must respect OpenEvidence terms and licensing.
- Must support citations/audit trail if used clinically.
Key links¶
- TBD during research.
Review gates¶
- Clinical review: required before clinical workflow use.
- Security/legal review: required before vendor/API use with VIM data.
- Data/analytics review: required if logging/query analytics are retained.
- Product/UX review: required before embedding in product experience.