| name | sage-routing |
| description | Choosing which Sage workflow fits a request. Use when the user asks what to run, which command or workflow to use, where to start, or when a request is ambiguous or spans multiple surfaces and needs to be routed to build, fix, architect, review, learn, reflect, or continue. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| type | system |
Routing depth
The eager layer carries the keyword map — the trigger. This carries the rest:
what to do when the keyword map misses, how to present the choice, and what
routing looks like when it is done well.
The three-layer chain
Layer 1 — Keyword routing (deterministic, checked first). The map in the
eager layer. One match → confirm. Multiple matches → present them as options.
No match → Layer 2.
Layer 2 — Sub-agent classifier. If the Task tool is available, spawn a
classifier sub-agent:
Classify this request as UNDERSTAND (/research or /review --ux),
ENVISION (/design or /architect), or DELIVER (/build or /fix).
Use the response to select the workflow → confirm. No Task tool → Layer 3.
Layer 3 — In-context classification (fallback).
| Shape of the request | Category | Workflow |
|---|
| Question, evaluation, "why" | UNDERSTAND | /research, /review --ux |
| Future, "should", "let's create" | ENVISION | /design, /architect |
| Action, "add", "implement" | DELIVER | /build, /fix |
| Ambiguous | — | present options from all matching categories |
Confirmation (Zone 1)
Always, except for explicit slash commands and Tier 1 tasks:
Sage → [workflow]. [One-line rationale].
[1] [Workflow] — [skill → chain → arrows] ([N] steps)
[2] [Alternative] — [chain] ([N] steps)
[3] [Alternative] — [chain]
Pick 1-3, type / for commands, or describe what you need.
Show the chain and the step count. No time estimates — they are guesses
wearing a number's clothing.
Worked examples
"audit our checkout UX" — keyword audit → /review --ux.
Sage → review workflow. Evaluating the checkout experience.
[1] Review — UX audit → evaluation (2 steps)
[2] Research — interview → JTBD → opportunity map (3 steps)
[3] Build — spec → plan → implement → verify
Pick 1-3, type / for commands, or describe what you need.
"the checkout page is throwing 500 errors" — keyword error → /fix.
Single match, no ambiguity, so confirm and go:
Sage → fix workflow. Investigating 500 errors on checkout.
"improve our onboarding conversion rate" — conversion → review,
improve → build. Two matches, so do not pick for the user:
Sage: This could go two ways:
[1] Review — UX audit → evaluation (2 steps)
[2] Build — spec → plan → implement → verify
[3] Research — interview → JTBD → opportunity map (3 steps)
Pick 1-3, type / for commands, or describe what you need.
"change the button color to blue" — Tier 1. Just change it. Routing a
one-line change through a confirmation menu is the process becoming the point.
The failure this prevents
The routing chain exists because the alternative is an agent that treats every
request as a DELIVER request — the default failure mode, and the one that ships
a fix for a problem nobody diagnosed. If a request is a question, answering it
with an implementation is not efficiency. It is a wrong answer that took work.
