agsy-workflow

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

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — systems models + calibration/uncertainty software by scale
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — official AgSy URLs behind every fact in this pack