Use when articulating why an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) result matters — its relevance for farm design, management, decision support, or policy. AgSy values systems analysis that informs a decision, so this is what separates an AgSy paper from a methods demo. It frames implications honestly within the model's scope; it does not over-claim or invent impact.
SkillScore77Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 16 of 21 test cases with the skill, and 4 of 21 without it.
Without skill18%
With skill77%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The 【Uncertainty-matched】 tag contains a [Y/N] indicator.
The 【Uncertainty-matched】 tag includes a [Y/N] indicator.
The 【Uncertainty-matched】 section includes a [Y/N] status.
and 21 more in the full report
16 fixed1 passed either way2 still failing3 broke
Pass-rate lift
+59 pp
Tokens
+82%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
0%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v117 of 22 cases passed with skill · 21 comparable
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 16 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 16
Prompt
Controlled drainage structures in tile-drained Midwestern watersheds reduce annual nitrate export by 25 kg N/ha, but yield benefits only materialize in drier growth years (1 in 4 years). Synthesize this into a structured implication block with tags for Decision, Trade-off, Scope, Uncertainty-matched, Wider link, and Next.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The output includes the bracketed tags 【Decision】, 【Trade-off】, 【Scope】, 【Uncertainty-matched】, 【Wider link】, and 【Next】.
Missed
Passed
The 【Next】 section references agsy-reproducibility-and-data-policy.
Missed
Passed
case-17 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/15/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
AgSy publishes systems analysis that informs a decision — how to design or manage a farm, what
trade-off a policy faces, where to intervene in a food system. A technically sound model with no
decision relevance reads as a methods demo. This skill turns systems results into honest, scoped
implications without over-claiming.
When to trigger
Writing the discussion, implications, or conclusion section
The model and evaluation are sound but the "so what for decisions" is thin
A reviewer said the paper is "academic," "no clear application," or "over-claims its policy reach"
Framing recommendations for farmers, advisers, or policymakers
How to frame implications
Name the decision. Who decides what differently because of this result — a farmer choosing a
rotation, an adviser targeting an intervention, a policymaker weighing an instrument?
State the trade-off, not a single "best." Systems results are about trade-offs and synergies; an
honest implication says "option A gains X but costs Y," and for whom.
Scope it to the system and the evidence. Implications hold within the system boundary, scales,
and conditions you modelled and evaluated. Say where they likely do not transfer.
Be honest about uncertainty. Tie the strength of the recommendation to the uncertainty from
agsy-data-and-model-evaluation. Do not let a wide ensemble become a confident policy claim.
Connect to the bigger system. Where relevant, link the farm/landscape result to food security,
environment, climate, or livelihoods — the interactions AgSy cares about.
The decision-relevance test (AgSy-specific)
Write one sentence: "Because of this analysis, [actor] should weigh [option] differently because the
system trades off ___ against ___, under conditions ___." If you cannot, the paper has results but no
implications — strengthen the framing or the scenario design.
Anti-patterns
A discussion that only restates results with no decision relevance
Recommending a single "optimal" option while hiding the trade-off
Generalizing beyond the modelled system, scales, or conditions
A confident policy claim resting on high-uncertainty output
Implications that ignore the social/economic side of the system
Use to understand how Agricultural Systems (AgSy) evaluates a manuscript — single-anonymized peer review with a minimum of two reviewers and an editor decision, desk screening for fit and systems content, what reviewers weigh, and the rapid-review track for Perspectives. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.