workflow-router
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when a request is broad, ambiguous, or multi-step and the right workflow (implementation, debugging, review, GitHub, research, workflow design, system triage, artifacts) must be chosen before execution. Also use when choosing or designing whether a repeatable workflow belongs in a skill, plugin, MCP, script, repo doc, or direct implementation path.
10 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- NashEQify/forgetheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- parcadei/Continuous-Claudetheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- KerberosClaw/kc_ai_skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v2their own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- wakqasahmed/ai-engineering-workflow-skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 3, 2026
- wakqasahmed/skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 12, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use review-gate and diagnose.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
vindreshsinghSkillreview-gate
Reviews a change across correctness, design, readability, security, and performance before it merges. Use when reviewing a PR, self-reviewing your own diff, or sanity-checking an AI-generated change prior to shipping.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkilldiagnose
Use to systematically diagnose why scenarios fail — identifies root causes by analyzing agent traces, codebase, and behavioral patterns
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions10 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 10
- parcadei/Continuous-Claude★ 3.9ksame name
- parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v2★ 3.9ksame name
- parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3★ 3.9ksame name
- KerberosClaw/kc_ai_skills★ 79same name
- Mr-Fang-VLSI/EDAgent★ 8same name
- NashEQify/forge★ 2same name
- wakqasahmed/ai-engineering-workflow-skills★ 2same name
- wakqasahmed/skills★ 2same name
- DojoGenesis/openclaw-plugin★ 0same name
- Mesteriis/Engineering-Bible-AI★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.
10
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Use this as a thin control layer: classify the request, choose the smallest workflow, load only useful specialists, and finish with …
- Very specific: line 20
If the current tool root has skill-routing.json, read it as an optional local specialist overlay.
- Very specific: line 23
If it declares default_candidates, use that small list as the normal candidate pool.
- Distinctive: line 35
Verify with the smallest meaningful command, UI check, artifact metric, or source citation that proves the requested behavior.
- Distinctive: line 41
If the user asks only for options, market research, or a strategy, stop after the decision and do not create files or run write actions.
- Distinctive: line 46
Prefer a single specialized path over several overlapping ones.
- Distinctive: line 47
If two routes seem plausible, choose the route that provides the earliest verifiable evidence.
- Distinctive: line 69
Use bounded repair loops:
- Distinctive: line 76
If the same error appears across three attempts, change strategy instead of repeating.
- Distinctive: line 78
Stop after five total repair attempts in one workflow.
- Distinctive: line 105
Never fabricate data to satisfy validation.
- Distinctive: line 112
Run the smallest meaningful verification step available.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Workflow Router
Use this as a thin control layer: classify the request, choose the smallest workflow, load only useful specialists, and finish with evidence. Keep it bounded, reversible, and tied to the user's current goal.
Activation Contract
It activates on explicit request or broad/multi-step description match; it is not a daemon or global override.
Once active, use these files as the runtime contract. Trivial one-step tasks bypass ceremony; a stricter loaded policy wins.
If the current tool root has skill-routing.json, read it as an optional local
specialist overlay. Explicit skill requests win; select one primary route and
no more than two overlays.
If it declares default_candidates, use that small list as the normal candidate
pool; unlisted skills remain available for explicit invocation only.
Start Here
- Restate the operational goal in one sentence for yourself.
- Inspect local context before deciding if the request depends on repo, machine, GitHub, or installed skill state.
- Classify the task using
references/router-map.mdand the optional registry. - Load any triggered specialized skill before acting.
- Execute the chosen workflow end to end when the action is reversible and within scope.
- Verify with the smallest meaningful command, UI check, artifact metric, or source citation that proves the requested behavior.
For nontrivial routes, report the primary, overlays, rejected candidates, and required evidence in the closeout; do not create a route artifact for trivial work.
If the user asks only for options, market research, or a strategy, stop after the decision and do not create files or run write actions.
Routing Rules
Prefer a single specialized path over several overlapping ones. If two routes seem plausible, choose the route that provides the earliest verifiable evidence; a failing CI request is a debugging route with GitHub context.
- Implementation: read relevant files, make a minimal diff, run focused tests, then summarize changed files and verification.
- Debugging: reproduce first, minimize the failing surface, instrument only as needed, fix, then add or run a regression check.
- Review: findings first, ordered by severity, with file and line references. Summaries are secondary.
- GitHub: resolve repo and branch state, inspect PR/issue/CI context,
then use GitHub-specific workflows or
ghfor gaps. - Research: prefer official/current sources and cite URLs. For local repo decisions, local architecture beats generic web guidance.
- Workflow design: decide whether the right artifact is a skill, plugin, MCP, script, repo doc, or direct implementation path, then validate the decision with a real prompt, command, or documented evaluation path.
- System triage: sample live state before explaining causes. Do not rely on stale summaries for process, storage, config, or runtime claims.
- Artifact: prove the artifact changed in the consumer-visible layer, such as rendered pixels, DOCX XML/text, slide render, or spreadsheet cells.
Loop Discipline
Use bounded repair loops:
- A repair attempt is one action/check cycle: a command, patch, tool call, browser check, or external call followed by its observed result.
- The first failed action counts as attempt 1.
- Retry the same approach at most two additional times when the failure is clearly transient or mechanical.
- If the same error appears across three attempts, change strategy instead of repeating.
- Stop after five total repair attempts in one workflow. A new signal justifies a strategy switch inside the cap, never extending it.
- Preserve the strongest evidence gathered before reporting a blocker.
Each loop must improve at least one of: reproduction fidelity, fault localization, patch quality, or verification strength. A loop that only reruns the same command is not progress.
Risk Gate
Proceed autonomously with reversible local reads, new files, small edits, local tests, local commits when requested, and normal pushes when the user requested publishing.
Pause for explicit confirmation before destructive or externally visible work:
- force push, hard reset, clean, branch deletion, or history rewrite
- deleting files or directories
- package installs or dependency changes
- database migrations
- production deploys
- payments, subscriptions, secret access, or external messages
- public API changes when not clearly requested
Secrets must never be committed. Before pushing a new or changed public repo, run a lightweight secret pattern scan or a stronger available scanner.
Never fabricate data to satisfy validation. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and what was verified instead.
Completion Gate
Before claiming completion:
- Run the smallest meaningful verification step available.
- Confirm the output directly, not from memory.
- Separate passing evidence from blocked or skipped checks.
- Give the user the result, changed paths, and any remaining risk.
Include browser or screenshot verification for visual work with a local target, actual command behavior for command-line work, and cited sources for research.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

