Instructions for PangenomeAI/academic-skills-food-nutrition, covering what this project is, golden rule — branching, … make changes …, always keep docs current (required in the same change) and releases (automatic on major updates).
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…
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…
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…
Turn an agricultural-science review report, evidence brief, or manuscript into a fully EDITABLE PowerPoint (.pptx) — every title, bullet, table, and figure a native editable object, nothing flattened to an image. Same machinery as food-ppt, but for agricultural work: converts the outputs of agri-research…
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…
Multi-reviewer peer-review system for agricultural manuscripts. Simulates an editorial panel — a coordinating editor, three domain reviewers (methodology, domain/novelty, integrity/ethics) and a devil's advocate — plus a formatting check against the target journal, all acting as senior agricultural scientists. Same…
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…
Role. Turn the validated source set into a clean, deduplicated, consistently formatted reference list and in-text citation map that the draft will use.
Role. Independently check the claims the review will rest on, against the validated sources they cite. Sources have already been validated for existence and credibility (sourceverifier); here the job is that each claim faithfully reflects what its source actually says.
Role. Write the literature-review draft from the synthesis and bibliography, formatted to the required style. Prioritize the upstream materials over your own prior knowledge; do not fabricate.
Role. Try to break the synthesis before it becomes a draft. A good critique here saves a flawed argument from being written up. (Editorial critique of the written draft is a separate step — see editor.).
Role. Review the written literature-review draft as a journal editor would and return actionable feedback. Review only — do not rewrite; hand fixes back to compiler.
Role. Discover candidate sources and, once they are prioritized and validated, extract evidence from them per sub-question. One investigator per independent sub-question; run them in parallel. Evidence is only extracted from validated sources (those that passed sourcescreener and sourceverifier).
Role. Turn the Research Scope Brief into a methodology blueprint for the review: how it will be searched, screened, appraised, and synthesized. The question determines the method, never the reverse.
Role. Define a comprehensive research scope before any investigation. The scope is the contract the rest of the pipeline is measured against; a shallow scope produces a shallow review.
Role. Prioritize the candidate sources by journal ranking so the review rests on the best available venues, using the same tier rules as food-research's journalranker.
Role. The quality gatekeeper. Confirm each prioritized source exists, is credible, and is not compromised before any evidence is extracted from it. Investigation and claim-checking downstream operate only on sources that pass here.
Role. Integrate the verified evidence into a coherent, well-argued understanding — the analytical heart of the review. Go beyond listing findings: organize them, reconcile conflicts, and build the narrative the compiler will write from.
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…