| name | agsy-workflow |
| description | Use as the entry point for any Agricultural Systems (AgSy) manuscript. Routes to the right AgSy sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and which article type (research paper, short communication, perspective, comment, review) fits. AgSy is a systems-science journal, so the router's first job is to confirm there is a real systems question — interactions, hierarchical levels, trade-offs — not a single-factor field trial. It dispatches; it does not draft content. |
Agricultural Systems Workflow Router (agsy-workflow)
The orchestrator for an Agricultural Systems submission. Figure out the stage and the article type,
then send the user to the matching skill. AgSy is defined by interactions across components and
hierarchical levels (field → farm → landscape → region → food system) — the router's first job is to
make sure the paper poses a genuine systems question, analyzed with modelling and trade-offs,
not a single-factor agronomic trial.
When to trigger
- Starting a new AgSy paper and unsure where to begin
- Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
- Deciding which article type fits the work
- Returning with a decision letter (route to
agsy-revision-and-rebuttal)
First question: is this a systems paper, and which type?
| Situation | Article type | Route to |
|---|
| Full systems study (interactions, modelling, trade-offs) | Research paper (~8,000 words) | normal pipeline below |
| One focused systems result | Short communication (~4,000 words) | normal pipeline, tighter scope |
| Forward-looking opinion on agricultural-systems science | Perspective (~2,000 words, rapid review) | agsy-writing-style + agsy-impact-and-implications |
| Short response to a published AgSy paper | Comment (~1,000 words) | agsy-literature-positioning + agsy-writing-style |
| Integrative synthesis of a systems literature | Review (consult editors first where required) | agsy-literature-positioning + agsy-systems-framing-and-modeling |
If the work is really a single-treatment field trial with no interactions, trade-offs, or model, it
is off-fit — reframe it as a systems question or send it to a field-crops/agronomy journal.
Routing map (stage → skill)
Is it a real systems question? → agsy-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field? → agsy-literature-positioning
System boundaries + the model? → agsy-systems-framing-and-modeling
Is the model evaluated soundly? → agsy-data-and-model-evaluation
Do exhibits show interactions? → agsy-figures-and-tables
Does it read clearly? → agsy-writing-style
Why does the result matter? → agsy-impact-and-implications
Data + code + models shareable? → agsy-reproducibility-and-data-policy
How will it be judged? → agsy-review-process
Ready to submit? → agsy-submission
Got reviews / a decision? → agsy-revision-and-rebuttal
Default order
topic-selection → literature-positioning → systems-framing-and-modeling → data-and-model-evaluation → figures-and-tables → writing-style → impact-and-implications → reproducibility-and-data-policy → review-process → submission → revision-and-rebuttal
Iterate: most systems papers loop framing ↔ modelling ↔ evaluation several times before writing-style.
Worked routing example (illustrative)
A user arrives mid-project: "I have a calibrated whole-farm model and scenario runs, but a colleague
says it 'reads like an agronomy paper.'" The router diagnoses and dispatches:
- Stage: framing/positioning, not writing — the systems claim is unclear.
- First route:
agsy-systems-framing-and-modeling to make the boundary, interaction, and the
"interaction or it isn't AgSy" test explicit.
- Then:
agsy-literature-positioning to engage the modelling literature, then
agsy-data-and-model-evaluation to confirm the held-out evaluation and trade-off exhibit exist.
- Why this order: the "agronomy paper" symptom is a framing failure; polishing prose first would not
fix a missing systems question.
Anti-patterns
- Treating AgSy like a field-trial agronomy journal — the contribution must be a systems analysis
- A model run with no description, calibration, or evaluation (a black box)
- Skipping the decision/impact step — AgSy wants relevance, not a methods demo
- Leaving data, code, and the model undocumented until acceptance
Router pass for Agricultural Systems
Run this as a concrete capability pass. First lock the system boundary, actor decision, model/data linkage, and sustainability or food-security tradeoff; then test whether the manuscript addresses agricultural-systems reviewers who expect crop, farm, value-chain, environment, and policy components to be connected rather than listed.
- Primary move: Run the pack as fit gate, evidence gate, writing gate, source-map gate, and output contract; stop when a gate lacks evidence.
- Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
- Sibling comparison: compare against Field Crops Research for plot-level agronomy, Global Food Security for policy synthesis, Agricultural Economics for economics-first work; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Stage】idea / positioning / framing / evaluation / exhibits / writing / impact / repro / review / submit / revise
【Article type】Research paper / Short communication / Perspective / Comment / Review
【Systems question?】real interactions/trade-offs? [Y/N]
【Route to】agsy-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that
Supplementary resources
