speckit-evaluator-route
Skill4 starsChanged 55 days agoMITView on GitHub
Recommend which model tier to use for the next SDD phase based on evaluator
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- electrohire/spec-kit-evaluatorword for word, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- electrohire/spec-kit-evaluator★ 3100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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.
In this repository25 other files it gives its agents.
- speckit-aee-assessSkill
- speckit-aee-challengeSkill
- speckit-aee-draft-claimsSkill
- speckit-aee-gapsSkill
- speckit-aee-gateSkill
- speckit-aee-message-securitySkill
- speckit-aee-report-savingsSkill
- speckit-aee-reviewSkill
- speckit-aee-route-evidenceSkill
- speckit-aee-traceSkill
- speckit-aee-verifySkill
- speckit-analyzeSkill
- speckit-checklistSkill
- speckit-clarifySkill
- speckit-constitutionSkill
- speckit-convergeSkill
- speckit-evaluator-composeSkill
- speckit-evaluator-reportSkill
- speckit-evaluator-runSkill
- speckit-implementSkill
- speckit-planSkill
- speckit-specifySkill
- speckit-tasksSkill
- speckit-taskstoissuesSkill
- spec-kit-aeeSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
Distinctive · estimate
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 43
Read the latest composed result or individual evaluator results for the current phase.
- Distinctive: line 85
If a budget constraint is specified, downgrade the recommendation if the estimated cost exceeds the budget:
- Distinctive: line 89
If cost > budget, try the next lower tier
- Very specific: line 90
If no tier fits the budget, recommend budget with a warning
- Distinctive: line 151
Default to budget: Start every phase at the budget tier.
- Distinctive: line 153
Downgrade when clean: If the previous phase had zero high/critical findings, drop back to budget for the next phase.
- Distinctive: line 160
Never recommend premium for a phase with zero high/critical findings.
- Very specific: line 161
Never recommend budget when there are unresolved block outcomes.
- Distinctive: line 162
Always show the cost comparison — let the human see what they're saving.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Evaluator Route Skill
Evaluator Route
Analyze evaluator findings and recommend which model tier to use for the next SDD phase. This is the mechanism that enables the portfolio approach: budget models for routine generation, standard models for review, premium models for critical decisions.
The recommendation is based on:
- Finding severity distribution (critical/high findings → escalate)
- Evidence quality (unsupported claims → need premium reasoning)
- Phase risk profile (implement is higher risk than specify)
- Cost optimization (budget is sufficient when risk is low)
User Input
$ARGUMENTSAccept:
- Phase — the next SDD phase to route for (e.g.,
phase=plan,phase=implement). Required. - Result files — evaluator result files to base the recommendation on. If not provided, discover the latest composed result for the current phase.
- Budget constraint — optional maximum USD budget for the next phase. If provided, the recommendation must stay within budget.
Prerequisites
- Path safety: resolve
.specify/extensions/evaluator/results/— refuse symlinks. - At least one evaluator result or composed result MUST exist. If none, default to
budgettier with a note that no evaluation data is available.
Execution
1. Load Evaluation Results
Read the latest composed result or individual evaluator results for the current phase.
2. Assess Risk Profile
Score the risk of the next phase based on evaluator findings:
| Factor | Weight | How Measured |
| Critical findings | 40% | Count of critical severity findings |
| High findings | 30% | Count of high severity findings |
| Evidence gaps | 20% | Count of unsupported_claim + missing_evidence findings |
| Contradictions | 10% | Count of contradictory finding pairs |
Risk score = weighted sum, normalized to 0.0–1.0.
3. Determine Recommended Tier
| Risk Score | Recommended Tier | Rationale |
| 0.0–0.2 | budget | Low risk — budget models sufficient |
| 0.2–0.5 | standard | Moderate risk — standard quality needed |
| 0.5–0.8 | premium | High risk — premium reasoning required |
| 0.8–1.0 | premium + escalation | Critical risk — premium + human review |
4. Apply Phase Risk Baseline
Each SDD phase has an inherent risk baseline that shifts the threshold:
| Phase | Baseline Risk | Effect |
specify | 0.1 | Slightly lower bar for premium (spec quality matters) |
plan | 0.15 | Moderate — design decisions are costly to undo |
tasks | 0.05 | Lower — task breakdown is mechanical |
implement | 0.2 | Higher — implementation errors are expensive |
analyze | 0.1 | Moderate — cross-artifact analysis |
checklist | 0.0 | Lowest — checklist generation is routine |
clarify | 0.15 | Moderate — clarification needs precision |
constitution | 0.2 | Higher — governance decisions are critical |
converge | 0.15 | Moderate — convergence assessment |
5. Apply Budget Constraint (if provided)
If a budget constraint is specified, downgrade the recommendation if the estimated cost exceeds the budget:
- Calculate estimated tokens for the next phase at the recommended tier
- Calculate estimated cost at that tier
- If cost > budget, try the next lower tier
- If no tier fits the budget, recommend
budgetwith a warning
6. Produce Model Routing Recommendation
Output a model_routing block conforming to the evaluator result schema:
{
"model_routing": {
"recommended_tier": "standard",
"reason": "2 high-severity findings and 1 evidence gap — standard quality recommended for plan phase",
"escalation_triggers": [
{
"condition": "Any new critical finding",
"escalate_to": "premium"
},
{
"condition": "More than 5 unsupported claims in next evaluation",
"escalate_to": "premium"
}
],
"estimated_tokens": 12000,
"estimated_cost_usd": 0.22,
"tier_breakdown": {
"budget": {
"estimated_tokens": 18000,
"estimated_cost_usd": 0.01
},
"standard": {
"estimated_tokens": 12000,
"estimated_cost_usd": 0.22
},
"premium": {
"estimated_tokens": 10000,
"estimated_cost_usd": 0.90
}
}
}
}7. Report
Output:
- The recommended tier and reason
- The risk score breakdown
- Cost comparison across all tiers
- Escalation triggers (conditions that would upgrade the recommendation)
- The estimated savings vs always using premium
Model Tier Pricing Reference
| Tier | Input $/1M tok | Output $/1M tok | Best For |
budget | $0.12–$0.25 | $0.50–$1.25 | Routine generation, drafts, bounded tasks |
standard | $3.00 | $15.00 | Review, moderate-complexity work |
premium | $15.00 | $75.00 | Critical decisions, security, governance |
portfolio | ~$1.30 | ~$6.40 | Routed blend (80% budget, 15% standard, 5% premium) |
Portfolio Approach Rules
- Default to budget. Start every phase at the budget tier. Only escalate when evaluator findings justify it.
- Escalate on evidence. Upgrade when findings show
criticalseverity,insufficient_evidenceuncertainty, orcontradictionbetween evaluators. - Downgrade when clean. If the previous phase had zero high/critical findings, drop back to budget for the next phase.
- Never use premium for generation. Premium models are for evaluation and decision-making, not for drafting specs or writing boilerplate code.
- Deterministic evaluators are free. Schema validators, linters, and static analyzers cost near-zero tokens. Run them always, at every phase.
- Model-backed evaluators use budget tier. Epistemic checks, semantic review, and coverage analysis run on budget models by default. Only escalate the evaluator itself when findings warrant it.
Guardrails
- Never recommend premium for a phase with zero high/critical findings.
- Never recommend budget when there are unresolved
blockoutcomes. - Always show the cost comparison — let the human see what they're saving.
- The routing recommendation is advisory — the human operator always has final say.
Workflow Integration (Explicit Wiring)
The evaluator's model routing recommendation can be wired into workflows using the existing expression mechanism. This keeps the dataflow visible and intentional — no engine changes needed.
steps:
- id: evaluate
type: command
command: speckit.evaluator.route
input:
phase: plan
- id: implement
type: command
command: speckit.implement
model: "{{ steps.evaluate.output.model_routing.recommended_tier }}"Each downstream step independently decides whether to use the recommendation. Workflow authors can validate, transform, or ignore it as needed.
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.

