routine-architect

name	routine-architect
description	Audit my routines, why does my routine keep repeating itself, fix my routine prompt, my daily report is useless, set up a routine, what routines should I have. Scores every Littlebird routine against a nine-point rubric built from alert-fatigue research, diagnoses failures from the report history rather than the prompt text, writes complete replacement prompts with memory and escalation clauses, and wires each routine to the Cowork skill that resolves what it finds. Use for auditing, rewriting, or designing routines, not for running the work a routine reports on.
license	SEE LICENSE IN LICENSE.md
compatibility	Claude Cowork, Claude Code 2.1 or newer, Cursor 2.4 or newer, Codex
metadata	{"version":"1.0.0","author":"Mario Aldayuz / Littlebird","requires":"Littlebird MCP (Power or Pro plan)"}

routine-architect

Purpose

The skill that fixes the other automation. It reads the user's routines, scores them, proves what is broken by quoting their own reports back, writes complete replacement prompts, and connects each routine to the Cowork skill that resolves what it finds.

The core finding it exists to deliver: a good prompt is not the same thing as a complete prompt. A routine can have scope, false-positive discipline, a length ceiling, and an explicit clause telling it not to manufacture anxiety, and still flag the identical item for sixteen consecutive days, because it is missing two clauses that are invisible in the prompt and obvious in the reports [references/research/raw/routine--grounding--littlebird-live-account-2026-08-17.md].

---

Littlebird MCP calls used

Real tool names, verified against the live server. List the tools actually available in this session before calling any of them. This is the heaviest user of the routine tools in the marketplace and it uses nothing else: the subject is the routine layer itself, so the evidence lives in routine configs and routine reports rather than in capture.

Tool	Used for
LB_INTERNAL_LIST_ROUTINES	Step A, the inventory. Title, schedule, report count, latest report date, paused state, and id for every routine. Staleness and production rate are computed from this before anything is read
LB_INTERNAL_GET_ROUTINE_CONFIG	Step B, per routine_id. Full prompt text plus the auto-pause setting, the push and email notification flags, agent mode and created date. Called a second time immediately before any write, never from memory of the first call
LB_INTERNAL_GET_ROUTINE_REPORTS	Step C, per routine_id, limit: 7 minimum where history allows and 25 at the tool maximum. The real evidence. Six of the nine failure modes are only visible here
LB_INTERNAL_UPDATE_ROUTINE	Stage 3, routine_id plus only the fields being changed. prompt and schedule each REPLACE the whole field, so the replacement text is handed back in full and approved as text before the call
LB_INTERNAL_CREATE_ROUTINE	Stage 4, title, prompt, schedule, notifications_enabled, email_notifications_enabled. Creating immediately generates a first report, which is the free evaluation described below
LB_INTERNAL_GET_SUBSCRIPTION_STATUS	Step D, no parameters. The plan and the slot budget, checked before anything that consumes a slot is recommended

schedule shape: {"frequency": "daily"|"weekly"|"monthly", "time": "HH:MM", "week_days": ["MO", ...], "month_day": 1-28}, in the user's local timezone (references/littlebird-mcp-reference.md, routine tools).

The structural fact this whole skill is shaped around: LB_INTERNAL_CREATE_ROUTINE and LB_INTERNAL_UPDATE_ROUTINE are not available from inside a running routine (references/littlebird-mcp-reference.md, routine tools). A routine cannot spawn or rewrite routines, so this skill is interactive by construction. That same constraint is what produces the observe-and-act split it wires into every routine it touches: routines observe and report, Cowork sessions hold the approval gate and do the writing. The argument in full is in references/observe-act-wiring.md.

Not used: search_user_context, LB_INTERNAL_LIST_MEETINGS, LB_INTERNAL_SEARCH_MEETINGS, LB_INTERNAL_GET_MEETING, LB_INTERNAL_GET_MEETING_TRANSCRIPT. Auditing a routine against capture instead of against its own reports is a second-hand check of a first-hand record.

---

Trigger

Trigger phrases: audit my routines, why does my routine keep repeating itself, fix my routine prompt, my daily report is useless, my routine flags the same thing every day, I stopped reading my routine, set up a routine, what routines should I have, is this routine worth the slot, my routine got paused.

Also run it when a sibling skill reports a routine as stale, repetitive or unread. That is a data-quality note in their output and a work item here.

Do not trigger for: running the work a routine reports on, which belongs to whichever skill owns that domain; proposing a new skill for repeated manual work, which is skill-suggester; or producing the week's scorecard, which is weekly-review.

---

Routine cadence

On demand, plus a monthly review of the portfolio. A routine portfolio drifts slowly: reports get longer, repeats accumulate, one routine quietly auto-pauses. Monthly is fast enough to catch that and slow enough that the audit itself does not become the noise.

This skill cannot run as a routine, and the reason is structural rather than stylistic. The two tools it needs to do anything about what it finds, LB_INTERNAL_CREATE_ROUTINE and LB_INTERNAL_UPDATE_ROUTINE, are unavailable from inside a running routine, and it requires an AskUserQuestion approval gate before every write, which a routine also cannot hold open (references/littlebird-mcp-reference.md, routine tools). So there is no scheduled mode of this skill. There is a calendar reminder to open Cowork and run it, and that is the honest version.

What it does create is other people's routines, and it creates them here. LB_INTERNAL_CREATE_ROUTINE works from an interactive session. Do not tell the user to go set a routine up by hand: check the slot with LB_INTERNAL_GET_SUBSCRIPTION_STATUS, name which slot it takes, show the full prompt text and the schedule, get approval through AskUserQuestion, then call CREATE_ROUTINE and read the first report with them. Patterns ready to paste are in references/routine-library.md.

---

Capability gate

This skill requires the Littlebird MCP on a Power or Pro plan. Before anything else:

1. List the tools actually available in this session and use the real names you find. Do not assume the names in references/littlebird-mcp-reference.md are still exact. That file is verified as of 2026-08-17 and is a starting point, not a contract.
2. If no Littlebird tools are present, stop. Say the skill needs the Littlebird MCP connected. There is no degraded mode: an audit of routines you cannot read is a guess.
3. Call the subscription status tool early. You need the plan before recommending anything that consumes a slot.

---

Do this first, every time

Read these two before you touch retrieval:

1. references/evidence-standards.md - the receipt format, the observed / inferred / external / unknown split, and the two confirmation gates.
2. references/littlebird-mcp-reference.md - tool parameters, return shapes, and the routine tool constraints this skill is built around.

Then references/failure-modes.md, which is the taxonomy everything else scores against.

---

Process

Stage	Guide	Output
1. Audit	references/audit-rubric.md parts 1 to 3	Score out of 18 per routine, with report evidence
2. Diagnose	references/failure-modes.md	Named failure modes, each with a quoted receipt
3. Rewrite	references/prompt-rewriting.md	Full replacement prompt text, approved before it is sent
4. Design new	references/routine-library.md	Ready-to-paste patterns for the user's job function
5. Wire the handoff	references/observe-act-wiring.md	A named next action on every reported item

Stages 1 and 2 always run. Stages 3 to 5 run only where the audit earned them.

---

Retrieval brief

Four calls, in this order. No search_user_context sweep: this skill's subject is the routine layer itself, and the evidence lives in routine configs and reports.

Step A. The inventory. LB_INTERNAL_LIST_ROUTINES, no limit. Gives title, schedule, report count, latest report date, paused state, and id. Compute staleness (latest report date against the schedule interval) and production rate (report count against the created date) before reading anything else.

Step B. The configs. LB_INTERNAL_GET_ROUTINE_CONFIG per routine. Returns the full prompt plus the auto-pause setting, notification flags, agent mode, and created date. Do not skim past the settings to reach the prompt. A routine with auto-pause-on-unread enabled that has paused did not fail administratively: the product's disengagement circuit breaker fired, which is a measured alert-fatigue event [references/research/distilled-routine-prompt-craft.md sections 4.2 and 8].

Step C. The reports, which is where the real evidence is. LB_INTERNAL_GET_ROUTINE_REPORTS per routine, limit: 7 minimum where the history allows, up to the maximum of 25. Fewer than 3 reports makes repetition undetectable, which means the memory, escalation, and anxiety criteria cannot be scored at all.

Read them oldest to newest. Alert fatigue is defined as a sustained decrease in appropriate response over time relative to a baseline [references/research/distilled-routine-prompt-craft.md section 4.2], so the diagnostic signal is a trend and a single report cannot show one.

Build the repeat table from references/audit-rubric.md part 1 step 4 before scoring anything. It drives four of the nine scores.

Step D. The plan. LB_INTERNAL_GET_SUBSCRIPTION_STATUS. Routine count is plan-limited. Slots are scarce by design across this whole product category: ChatGPT caps scheduled tasks at 3 to 15 by tier, Gemini at 10 [references/research/distilled-routine-prompt-craft.md section 8]. Never recommend adding a routine without naming which slot it uses.

---

Read the reports, not just the prompt

The one instruction that separates this skill from a prompt review.

Six of the nine failure modes are invisible in the prompt text. The prompt states intent. The reports are the evidence of whether the intent survived contact with real data. A routine whose prompt says "keep the total output under 200 words" can produce reports that run past it, and the only way to know is to measure them [references/research/raw/routine--grounding--littlebird-live-account-2026-08-17.md].

Every diagnosis you present carries a quoted report line with its date (references/evidence-standards.md rule 1). The score is an opinion. The quoted line is the argument.

---

The nine failure modes

Full detection method, cost, and fix clause for each in references/failure-modes.md.

#	Failure	Detected in
1	No memory. Never reads its own past reports, so it rediscovers the same conditions forever	Prompt and reports
2	No escalation rule. Nothing says what to do when an item recurs	Reports
3	No handoff. Every finding needs the human and nothing names what resolves it	Reports
4	Vague scope. Names a topic instead of sources, tests, structure, and length	Prompt
5	No false-positive discipline. Flags everything, trains the user to ignore it	Prompt and reports
6	Dead or paused, occupying a scarce plan slot	List and config
7	Unbounded output, or a ceiling stated once and never honored	Prompt and reports
8	Schedule mismatch. Wrong cadence, wrong time, or an urgent class trapped in a slow digest	Reports
9	Anxiety manufacturing. No permission to report nothing, so it invents something	Reports

Modes 1 and 2 are separate on purpose. Memory without escalation produces a routine that knows it is repeating and repeats anyway, louder. The live grounding case does exactly that: it wrote "It's been the #1 item for three days straight", then the next day "This has been the #1 item for four straight days", with the recommended action unchanged [references/research/raw/routine--grounding--littlebird-live-account-2026-08-17.md].

---

Alert fatigue is the constraint the rubric is built on

Routines are an alert stream. The prompt-craft literature tells you how one run produces good output. The alert-fatigue literature tells you what happens over hundreds of runs when that output is not worth reading.

The numbers that set the stakes. In 382 clinician-reviewed medication alerts: 92.9% overridden, 7.3% clinically appropriate, and in 89% of cases the alert was wrong and the human was right to ignore it. The authors' conclusion: "Alert fatigue is unavoidable when a large number of irrelevant alerts are generated in response to a small number of useful alerts" [references/research/distilled-routine-prompt-craft.md section 4.1].

Three rules follow, and they govern every recommendation this skill makes.

• Under-alerting is the cheaper error. "Err on the side of removing noisy alerts, over-monitoring is a harder problem to solve than under-monitoring" [references/research/distilled-routine-prompt-craft.md section 4.4]. A routine that misses something can be tuned. A routine the user stopped opening cannot, because the tuning signal is gone.
• Every finding must be actionable. "Simply noting 'this paged again' is not an action" [same section]. That single sentence is failure modes 2 and 3 together.
• An ignored finding is not proof the finding was wrong. An inappropriate finding and an appropriate finding the user chose not to act on are different failures with different fixes, and the literature warns that tuning a proxy can miss entirely [references/research/distilled-routine-prompt-craft.md section 4.3]. When you cannot tell which one you are looking at, ask.

Stated conflict, because the archive contains one. A 2009 air traffic control study found a 45% false-alert rate produced no measurable cry wolf effect in expert controllers [references/research/distilled-routine-prompt-craft.md section 4.5]. That result narrows the claim rather than overturning it: the tolerance depended on an expert already watching the underlying condition independently, which is precisely the case a routine does not cover. Prefer the pessimistic reading and be able to say why.

---

Creating a routine is a free test

Creating a routine immediately generates a first report, then it runs on schedule (references/littlebird-mcp-reference.md, routine tools). That first report is a real evaluation against real data, and it arrives while the user still remembers exactly what they asked for.

Use it. Read it with the user and check three things: did it find real items, did it hold the length ceiling, and would it have said something on a quiet day rather than manufacturing one. Fix the prompt now if any answer is no. This is the closest thing to a prompt evaluation loop this environment offers, and both vendors' production guidance says to build one rather than shipping and hoping [references/research/distilled-routine-prompt-craft.md section 2].

Note the asymmetry: updating a routine does not generate an immediate report. A rewrite takes effect at the next scheduled run, and a rewrite of a paused routine changes nothing at all until it is unpaused. Say both out loud.

---

Evidence standards

Apply references/evidence-standards.md in full. The four that bite hardest here:

• Receipts on every diagnosis (rule 1). Quote the report line and its date. "This routine repeats itself" is an opinion. "The same contact appears on Aug 13, 14, 15 and 16 with the same recommendation" is a finding.
• Observed, inferred, unknown stay visibly different (rule 2). A repeat streak counted from the reports is observed. "The user has stopped reading it" is an inference unless they said so or the routine auto-paused on unread. Never convert an absence of reports into a claim about the user's behavior.
• Confirm before you encode (rule 6). The replacement prompt is a durable change to the user's automation. It gets approved as text.
• Raw capture never ships (rule 7). Routine reports contain vendor names, amounts, third-party contacts, and account detail. Quote the minimum the diagnosis needs. Do not reproduce a full report into a deliverable, and apply rule 10 to any third party named in one.

---

Output

One markdown file in the working directory: routine-audit-<YYYY-MM-DD>.md.

Contents, in this order:

1. Bottom line. One sentence: the single highest-value change. Lead with the decision, not a recap. A bottom line is not a summary [references/research/distilled-routine-prompt-craft.md section 7.1].
2. Slot budget. Routines running, dead routines, plan limit, slots available.
3. The audit table. One row per routine, worst first: title, schedule, report count, last run, score out of 18, top failure, recommendation.
4. Per-routine diagnosis blocks for anything scoring below 15, in the format in references/audit-rubric.md part 5. Each opens with what the routine does well, then the failures with quoted evidence, then the cost, then the fix.
5. Replacement prompts, in full, in code blocks, exactly as approved.
6. Proposed new routines, at most three, each with its pattern name from references/routine-library.md, its schedule, its slot cost, and its handoff target.
7. Applied changes. What was actually sent to UPDATE or CREATE, confirmed by a follow-up config read, and when each takes effect.

If the user declined every change, the file still ships with sections 1 to 4 and an explicit line saying no changes were applied. A declined audit is a completed audit.

---

Guardrail

The risk this skill carries is that it writes to live automation the user depends on, and it spends a resource the user cannot get more of. Every other skill in this marketplace produces a document. This one edits the things that produce documents, unattended, on a schedule, after the session has ended. A bad rewrite is not a bad paragraph the user can ignore; it is a routine that quietly stops reporting the one thing it existed to catch, and nobody finds out until the thing it was watching has already happened.

Never silently rewrite someone's automation

LB_INTERNAL_UPDATE_ROUTINE replaces the entire prompt. There is no patch and no append (references/littlebird-mcp-reference.md, routine tools). Three non-negotiables:

1. Call LB_INTERNAL_GET_ROUTINE_CONFIG immediately before writing a replacement, not from memory of an earlier call. The user may have edited it in the app while you were talking.
2. Hand back full text. Every clause you intend to keep must be present, character for character where you are not deliberately changing it.
3. Get explicit approval of the actual replacement text via AskUserQuestion before calling UPDATE. Not a description of the change, the text (references/evidence-standards.md rule 6). Editing live automation is exactly the class of action first-party guidance puts behind a confirmation gate [references/research/raw/routine--prompt-craft--claude-platform-docs-prompting.md].

Show, in order: the diagnosis with its receipts, the full current prompt, the full replacement prompt, a change list naming what was added, removed, and kept, and a one-sentence prediction of what changes in the next report. Then ask, with "leave it as is" offered as a real option you accept without arguing. Read-back structure in references/prompt-rewriting.md.

Preserve what works. A routine scoring 10 to 14 is mostly right. Keep the user's own scope language and worked negative cases verbatim: those came from real false positives that annoyed them, and rewriting them for style destroys information you cannot recover. Then say so plainly: "two sections added, everything else is your original text, unchanged." That sentence is what gets a rewrite approved.

The same gate applies to deletion and to pausing. A dead routine is still the user's, and "delete it" is a recommendation this skill makes, never an action it takes on its own.

Slots are scarce, so kill before you add

Routine count is plan-limited. Recommendations always run in this order, and say why:

1. Delete dead routines. A slot freed at zero cost and zero risk.
2. Fix routines scoring 10 to 14. Highest value per unit of work.
3. Rewrite routines scoring 5 to 9.
4. Add new ones, one at a time, only after the first three and only into a free slot.

Never propose a new routine without naming which slot it takes. Present it as a budget: "you are running two routines, one has produced nothing since May, and adding this means either an upgrade or reclaiming that slot."

And cap the ambition. Do not install more than two new routines in a session whatever the plan allows: a person absorbs a few interruptions a day before fatiguing [references/research/distilled-routine-prompt-craft.md section 4.4], and the damage comes from interrupt volume rather than notification volume [references/research/distilled-routine-prompt-craft.md section 7.5].

---

Empty and thin retrieval

Situation	Action
No Littlebird tools in session	Stop at the capability gate.
Zero routines exist	Not an empty retrieval, it is a design session. Skip stages 1 to 3, ask about the user's job function, and go to references/routine-library.md. Propose at most two.
Routines exist, reports empty	Report that the routines have never produced output, which is itself the finding. Check the paused state and created date. Do not score criteria that need report evidence.
Fewer than 3 reports in a history	Say the audit is liveness-only for that routine. Score scope, false-positive discipline, ceiling, and anxiety from the prompt; mark memory, escalation, handoff, liveness, and schedule fit as not assessable. Never infer report content from prompt quality.
Reports too long to read in full	Read the most recent 7 in full. Repetition shows up inside 7 runs, and 25 is the tool maximum anyway.
Cannot tell whether an ignored finding was wrong or just unactioned	Ask the user. Do not guess. This is the single most common way an audit produces a confident wrong answer [references/research/distilled-routine-prompt-craft.md section 4.3].

A failed or empty retrieval ends the run (references/evidence-standards.md rule 9). Never invent what a routine's reports probably said.

---

Routine wiring

None for itself, for the reasons given under Routine cadence above.

What this skill does instead is wire other routines to their Cowork counterparts. Every routine it writes or repairs ends each reported item with a named next action:

Next: open Cowork and run <skill-name> on <specific target>.
Next: <the single physical action>, roughly <time estimate>.

The finding-to-skill mapping, the rules that make a handoff real rather than decorative, and the reverse direction (a Cowork skill reading the routine's own report history before it starts) are all in references/observe-act-wiring.md.

---

Ship Gate

Ship Gate removed, research-only skill, produces no committable code.

---

Related skills

Skill	The boundary
skill-suggester	It proposes NEW skills from repeated manual work in capture. This one tunes, repairs and designs the routines that already exist. Reach for it when the answer to a detected pattern is a workflow the user does not have yet; stay here when the answer is a watch they already have, badly written. They overlap, deliberately and declaredly: skill-suggester runs a monthly detector for reusable patterns, and this skill ships a reusable-asset watch pattern in references/routine-library.md that looks at the same signal on the same cadence. Two monthly routines naming the same work make both unreadable and burn two scarce slots, so install one and say which.
weekly-review	The biggest consumer of routine reports in the marketplace: it composes the week by reading the siblings' own output rather than re-deriving it. That makes it the loudest early warning for this skill. When it prints a sibling as stale, paused or repeating, it stops there and points here, because it never grades a routine. Reach for it for the week's scorecard; come here to ask whether the routines producing that scorecard are worth their slots.
daily-brief	The daily rollup reader, and the routine whose failure modes surface fastest, because a daily cadence produces a repeat streak in a week where a weekly one takes two months. Reach for it to get the day composed; come here when its report has flagged the same item four days running, which is failure modes 1 and 2 together.

---

Reference map

File	Load it when
references/failure-modes.md	Always, before scoring. The nine failure modes, their detection, cost, and fix clauses.
references/audit-rubric.md	Stage 1. Collection order, the nine-point score, report diagnostics, portfolio findings, recommendation order.
references/prompt-rewriting.md	Stage 3. The seven-part prompt shape, clause text, the read-back and approval gate, a full worked rewrite.
references/routine-library.md	Stage 4. Ten complete patterns across five job functions, ready to paste.
references/observe-act-wiring.md	Stage 5, and any time the user asks why this skill cannot run as a routine.
references/evidence-standards.md	Always, first.
references/littlebird-mcp-reference.md	Always, first.
references/research/distilled-routine-prompt-craft.md	When you need the citation behind a rule, or to check whether a claim is evidenced at all. Section 9 is the claim map.
references/research/README.md	Source inventory and the archive's six named gaps.

Three things in this skill are design decisions rather than researched practice, and they are labelled as such wherever they appear: the three-occurrence escalation threshold, the nine-mode taxonomy itself, and the routine library patterns. No vendor publishes any guidance on writing a recurring agent prompt, which is the archive's largest gap and the reason the rubric is constructed by transferring the alert-fatigue and digest-design literature. See references/research/distilled-routine-prompt-craft.md section 10.