General-purpose deep research that produces a fully written, source-validated literature review on any question: scope it, design the method, discover and screen sources by journal ranking, validate every source, extract and verify evidence, synthesize, stress-test, then write and format the review (APA 7.0 by default, or a target journal's style) and polish it through an editorial + integrity review loop. Use standalone for a deep dive or literature review, or as the deep-dive engine called by food-research. Runs a 12-subagent team with iterate-to-saturation and compile↔review loops. Triggers: deep research, research this in depth, write a literature review, investigate thoroughly, comprehensive review, state of the evidence, briefing on, dig into, deep dive.
Multi-subagent manuscript system for food & nutrition science covering the whole research process: understand the field, frame research questions, curate and analyze data, run statistics, build figures and tables, construct the discussion, draft, polish, and self-review — journal-aware throughout. Includes a format-convert mode that reformats an already-finished manuscript to another journal's structure and reference style without touching the science. Use to write, outline, revise, polish, or reformat a food-science paper or any section. Triggers: write my paper, draft a manuscript, food science paper, outline my paper, revise my manuscript, analyze my data and write it up, statistics for my paper, polish my manuscript, format for a journal, reformat my manuscript for a different journal, change the journal format, convert to another journal style, my paper is finished I just need the formatting.
Run a comprehensive, multi-source literature and evidence-synthesis workflow for food & nutrition science. Use when the user wants to research a food/nutrition topic in depth, do a literature review, build an evidence brief, screen and synthesize many sources, verify citations, or scope a systematic review. Coordinates food-science databases, preprints, semantic search, and food-safety/regulatory sources; runs a four-layer search, two-phase screening, and cross-source synthesis via subagents; grades evidence and maps gaps. Triggers: research this topic, deep literature review, comprehensive review, evidence synthesis, systematic review, scope a review, find all the literature, what does the evidence say, food science research, nutrition evidence, survey the field.
Deep research producing a fully written, source-validated literature review on an agricultural question, as a senior agricultural scientist of the relevant discipline: scope, design the method, discover and screen by journal ranking, validate every source, extract and verify evidence, synthesize, stress-test, then write and format the review through an editorial and integrity loop. Same 12-subagent machinery as food-deep-research, grounded in agriculture and multidisciplinary literature (Q1/Q2 preferred, Q4 avoided). Use standalone for an agricultural deep dive, or as the engine called by agri-research. Triggers: deep research agriculture, investigate this agronomy question, agricultural literature review, state of the evidence in soil science, deep dive crop research.
Multi-subagent manuscript system for agricultural science, written as a senior agricultural scientist of the relevant discipline: understand the field, frame questions, curate data, run statistics, build figures and tables, construct the discussion, draft, polish, and self-review — journal-aware throughout. Same machinery as food-paper, grounded in agriculture literature (Q1/Q2 preferred, Q4 avoided) and agricultural reporting standards for field trials, animal work and soils. Includes a format-convert mode that reformats a finished manuscript for another journal without touching the science. Triggers: write my agronomy paper, draft an agricultural manuscript, soil science paper, horticulture paper, animal science manuscript, analyze my field trial and write it up, format for an agriculture journal, reformat my manuscript for a different journal, my agricultural paper is finished I just need the formatting.
Run a comprehensive, multi-source literature and evidence-synthesis workflow for agricultural science, as a senior agricultural scientist of the relevant discipline (agronomy, soil science, horticulture, dairy and animal science, agricultural engineering, or agricultural economics). Same machinery as food-research, but the evidence base is agriculture and multidisciplinary literature ranked by journal quartile: Q1/Q2 agriculture journals plus the Nature, Science, Cell and PNAS families first, Q3 only for gaps, Q4 avoided. Use to research an agricultural topic in depth, do a literature review, build an evidence brief, or scope a systematic review. Triggers: research this agricultural topic, agronomy literature review, soil science evidence synthesis, horticulture review, animal science evidence, crop research, farming systems review, what does the agricultural evidence say.
Lawfully acquire the full text of academic articles so the research and review skills can read papers, not just abstracts. Routes each article through legal open access (Unpaywall/OpenAlex/PMC/arXiv), the user's own reference-manager library (EndNote/Zotero/Mendeley PDFs), and — only with the user's own logged-in institutional browser session — their library's entitled full text, then extracts the text and writes a manifest of what was and was not obtained. Open-access articles are always downloaded and read, never left at abstract-level. Never bypasses paywalls, DRM, or logins. Use to fetch PDFs for a reference list or DOIs, get full text behind a subscription the user is entitled to, or build a full-text corpus. Triggers: download these papers, get the full text, fetch the PDFs for these DOIs, retrieve full text for my reference list, access the article through my library, build a full-text corpus.
Multi-reviewer peer-review system for food & nutrition manuscripts. Simulates an editorial panel — a coordinating editor, three domain reviewers (methodology/statistics, domain/novelty, integrity/ethics), and a devil's advocate — plus a formatting-compliance check against the target journal (APA 7.0 by default, or a specific journal via journal-selector). Grounds the panel first: reads the manuscript's cited sources and the field's key literature into a knowledge base, so novelty and correctness are judged from evidence, not impression. Use for pre-submission review, reviewer reports, mock peer review, or a critique before submitting. Triggers: review my paper, peer review, referee report, reviewer reports, critique my manuscript, pre-submission review, is my paper ready, mock review, editorial review, assess novelty and rigor.