Agri pipeline

Skill PangenomeAI/academic-skills-food-nutrition/agri-pipeline

Open, MIT-licensed food & nutrition science research skills for Claude Code, Codex, and MiniMax Agent — multi-agent literature/systematic review, journal-aware writing, peer review, and figures, plus author-guideline skills for 150+ journals. Initiated by the Food Science Group, University of Melbourne.

Install

npx -y skills add PangenomeAI/academic-skills-food-nutrition --skill agri-pipeline

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

25 days oldThe repository was created 25 days ago. New is not bad, but a brand new repository carrying a familiar-sounding name is the shape a typosquat arrives in, and there has been no time for anyone else to find a problem with it.
17 stars17 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Master orchestrator for the whole agricultural research-to-publication workflow, run as a senior agricultural scientist. Coordinates the agri skills — journal selection, research (agri-research or agri-deep-research), writing and analysis (agri-paper), figures (food-figure), peer review (agri-review), revision and finalization — into one governed path with quality gates. Same machinery as food-pipeline, grounded in agriculture and multidisciplinary literature (Q1/Q2 preferred, Q4 avoided). Use when the user wants the entire agricultural process managed end to end. Triggers: run the full agricultural paper workflow, take my field trial from research to submission, manage my whole agronomy project, agricultural research to publication, end-to-end agriculture paper.

SKILL.md

4.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Agri-Pipeline — Research-to-Publication for Agricultural Science

Run the food-pipeline skill exactly — its subagents (intake_router, quality_gate), its stages 0–6, its quality gates, its mode advisor, and its review/revision authorization defaults — with the agriculture substitutions in agri-research/references/agriculture-domain.md. Read that file first. No new machinery here.

The substitutions

Persona — a senior agricultural scientist of the specific discipline, carried into every stage and every skill it dispatches (domain §2).
Route to the agri-* skills, not the food ones:

Stage	Skill
0 · ROUTE	`intake_router` + `journal-selector` (agriculture coverage map)
1 · RESEARCH	`agri-research` (or `agri-deep-research`)
2 · WRITE	`agri-paper` → figures via `food-figure` (domain-neutral)
3 · REVIEW	`agri-review`
4 · REVISE	`agri-paper` (revise)
5 · RE-REVIEW	`agri-review` (re-review)
6 · FINALIZE	`agri-paper` (format-convert)

Evidence base — Tier 1 Q1/Q2 agriculture + Nature/Science/Cell/PNAS + Q1/Q2 adjacent disciplines; Q3 for gaps; Q4 avoided (domain §3).

food-figure is used directly and deliberately — it is domain-neutral and already renders at the journal spec.

Inherited unchanged (not optional)

Journal resolved once at ROUTE via journal-selector and passed to every downstream skill, so none re-asks.
Knowledge reuse: when Stage 1 runs, its evidence base is carried into Stages 3/5 so agri-review does not re-search the field — it reuses it and tops up with agri-research quick brief key reviews read in full.
Review/revision defaults: one review→revise round; a second round and in-place Tracked Changes on the original Word file each require explicit author authorization.
Deliverables — exactly two files, both .docx: one manuscript, and one Review_and_Response_Report_<slug>_<date>.docx carrying both the reviewer feedback and the editing response — agri-review writes the feedback at Stage 3, agri-paper fills each Response (type) into that same file at Stage 4, and an authorized round 2 appends R2-* items to it. No separate reviewer report, no standalone response letter, never Markdown (food-review/references/report-format.md).
Quality gates, anti-fabrication grounding, four-gate citations, privacy scan, human-writing.md, and the mandatory AI-use disclosure.

Agricultural gates (domain §5)

At the Stage-2 gate, do not pass a manuscript that omits the experimental unit, field-trial reporting (site, season/years, soil, cultivar, design, replication), or ethics/ARRIVE for animal work — these are the flaws that end agricultural papers at review.