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