How do I install the Agri Pipeline skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add pangenomeai/agri-pipeline in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Agri Pipeline safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Agri Pipeline?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Agri Pipeline free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Agri Pipeline?

PangenomeAI (@pangenomeai) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Agri Pipeline by pangenomeai — Agent Skill

Name: Agri Pipeline
Author: PangenomeAI

Agri Pipeline

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.

PangenomeAI Updated Sep 17, 2026

File contents

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.

---name: agri-pipelinedescription: 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.---# 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 itsreview/revision authorization defaults — with the agriculture substitutions in[`agri-research/references/agriculture-domain.md`](../agri-research/references/agriculture-domain.md).Read that file first. No new machinery here.## The substitutions1. **Persona** — a **senior agricultural scientist of the specific discipline**, carried into every stage and every skill it dispatches (domain §2).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) |3. **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 alreadyrenders 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), orethics/**ARRIVE** for animal work — these are the flaws that end agricultural papersat review.

Frequently asked questions