I think that there'll be a bit of trouble with definitions, semantics, and philosophical aspects of the question. In my opinion, the very comparison of given species to the mentally-butchered form of our ancestors isn't perfect as a problem statement, since the created gap is so huge, that - at least to me, currently - it's hard to establish whether the hypothetical species would be closer to an animal, computer or some exotic (and probably desired by OP) form of an alien human-equivalent.
It's easy to make the question easier by altering the environment to simplify the process of agriculture. The only problem is, how many elements can we remove before defined the process stops being agriculture?
We can make the environment to always have perfect weather, natural irrigation, fertile lands... so on, but at some point, it might stop being less like agriculture and start to be more like a combination of gathering and incidental pollination (seeding) that evolved into its instinctive counterpart.
If I could remove the requirement of 'development' - which in itself is a problematic aspect to define, then for me, the easiest answer would be species with an in-built computer equivalent. Since it was never stated in a problem statement that species were to be developed naturally, we could simply apply the idea of a higher-intelligence who assists the species or engineered their biology, for example:
- Based on the currently observed state of the environment - (the more 'sensors', the better), species 'intuitively' perform actions determined by their biological or external circuit.
- Example A: Engineered tree-like species with wide roots that inspect the soil and search for water, with perhaps hairy leaves and numerous eyes that act as the above-ground sensors related to weather conditions or detecting pests. They could act in an energy-conserving mode for most of the year, then refill their biological battery (fats) at the time of (likely a very massive) harvest. Perhaps, they could also have a biological system that allows the preservation of food, like submerging collected fruits in resin - I'm not into chemistry, so I don't know how it could work, but well... as stated earlier, we can always cheat and make products of our agricultural work almost never rot (think super beans/rice).
- Example B: Your typical caveman carrying a computer/device that tells him what to do.
However, that doesn't answer the original question, which concerns the aspect of development. We could substitute the 'instant' engineering with a progressive one or teaching/conditioning over time, but does that count as 'the species developed agriculture'?
Develop: 'to (cause something to) grow or change into a more advanced, larger, or stronger form'.
To my understanding of the English, the species would cause agriculture to develop, but only indirectly, more like slaves than the mind behind the idea, but I guess it would still count by a technicality.
IMO, the better idea would be the evolutionary roadmap, which ensures independence, example:
Start: Beetle-like creatures who accidentally carry seeds between their spiky hairs, like pollen.
Goal: Digging holes/rows for seeds
Evolution step: Some beetles evolve a talon under their belly, which breaks up the soil as beetle moves. The advantage in the process of natural selection is the extra combat ability, ability quickly to burrow to hide from predators, a bigger chance for accidentally burrowed seeds to develop in the home area - more food. Of course, it expands a lot of energy to constantly fight friction/soil, so it can be substituted just by digging holes for protection and in that case, the talon could be replaced by a horn, like in case of rhinoceros beetles. Another benefit is burrowing eggs for protection.
Goal: Digging rows
Evolution step: Eggs burrowed separately can have a higher chance to survive/give offspring. For example, because due to varying circumstances, predators have to expend more energy to dig them out separately than it takes to burrow. Offspring isn't forced to compete for food in clusters, instead, each gets its own patch of land.
Evolution step: Beetles could naturally choose to live close to water, to avoids deaths related to dehydration. Water could also be related to the development of eggs, perhaps beetles could instead start as water or hybrid creature (think frogs). Accidental tunnels could turn into structures derived from natural selection, that facilitate breeding and allow parents to take better care of offspring. Of course, we also remember the default advantage of more food due to a better chance of seed sprouting.
Evolution step: Could be like a byproduct of dung beetles and accidental fertilization (think substances like pollen/syrup/water plant residue/the current carrying dead water creatures to irrigation tunnels/traps like spiderwebs and hunting/killing more than necessary - also, might be not for food to not overwhelm agricultural aspects, but eg. prey might be inedible/poisonous and our species might be territorial). Maybe an idea with using crushed shells? Carrying these for protection, eg. like hermit crabs.
Goal: Pest Control
Evolution step: Default advantage + more food
Goal: Weed Control
Evolution step: Creatures may use plants for clothes, hives, or structures. Using exclusively weeds leads to default advantage.
So on... so on... luckily, it can always be altered by simplifying the environment.
Still, the question that arises again is - did the species 'develop' the agriculture? To my understanding of the English, due to technicality - it would be 'YES', but it's more like the main 'author' is the sole process of evolution and (again) species acted as 'slave' to the process.
I've kind of wanted to discuss the concept of creatures in relation to the Turing machines, where memory could be compared to the machine's tape or creatures could create 'notes/guides' (for themself, or future generations), but it's kinda late, so I can't elaborate on that and I've kinda messed some details due to time anyway, so just giving a general idea. The concept is to write the notes in such form, that there's no hint or intent of planning for future or extrapolating from the past, but rather something like a written communication of ideas/results between two creatures, which would later develop into a kind of social framework/dogma, with no relation to past/future, but rather as the establishment of (perhaps nigh religion-like) facts (commandments). There're some issues to discuss, as to how far can we take writing into memory before it counts as related to past/future issues, controversies with awareness - eg. DNA kinda establishes the concept of past/future events but creatures are not aware of it, the same can apply to other types of memory and you can, of course, bypass many issues by making the creatures, for example, deluded af.