| name | blog-task-router |
| description | Route ambiguous blog work requests to the right Blog plugin skill or skill sequence. Use when the user asks broadly to review a blog post, improve a draft, prepare for external publication, check whether a post is safe to publish, decide if interaction is needed, or asks which Blog plugin skill should handle the task. |
Blog Task Router
Purpose
Choose the smallest useful Blog plugin skill path for a request. If the next action is clear and the needed artifact is available, continue into that first skill instead of stopping at a routing-only answer. Return only a compact routing answer when the user explicitly asks which skill to use or the missing input blocks the next action.
Use Korean by default for user-facing routing notes.
Routing Rules
- Use
$content-improvement when the main request is to improve prose, title, structure, claim, reader value, or Korean expression.
- Use
$external-publication-review when the question is whether a draft, internal note, converted source, HTML artifact, demo writeup, or company blog post can be published externally.
- Use
$public-risk-check when the user asks for sensitive-info review, disclosure risk, anonymization, customer/screenshot/link/data safety, or risky wording only.
- Use
$interactive-elements when the user asks whether the article needs interactive HTML, visuals, diagrams, animation, 3D, demo UI, or a richer explanation layer.
If the request mixes multiple goals, route in this order unless the user explicitly prioritizes otherwise:
$external-publication-review when external publication, public sharing, company blog release, approval, safety, or "can this go out?" is implied, even if the draft's claim or reader value is weak.$content-improvement when the user asks for writing improvement and no publish/no-publish judgment is implied.$public-risk-check for local files, HTML, demos, screenshots, media, exact metrics, private links, or other disclosure surfaces.$interactive-elements only after the core article and publication boundary are stable.
Do not ask the user to choose a skill when the request already implies one. Make the routing decision and proceed.
Default broad blog review with an artifact to $external-publication-review rather than $content-improvement, because broad review usually means publication readiness in this plugin.
Do not polish a publication-facing draft before the publication gate has classified whether the problem is author intent, reader value, source faithfulness, public boundary, or publication fit.
Fast Decisions
- "블로그 좀 봐줘" with a draft or artifact but no specific ask -> default to
$external-publication-review; route to $content-improvement only when the user explicitly asks for prose, title, structure, or Korean expression improvement.
- "글 개선해줘" ->
$content-improvement, then route to $external-publication-review if the result is publication-facing.
- "외부에 내도 돼?" ->
$external-publication-review.
- "민감한 거 있어?" ->
$public-risk-check.
- "인터랙티브 넣을까?" ->
$interactive-elements, but downgrade to $content-improvement first if the claim is unclear.
- "HTML/demo까지 봐줘" ->
$external-publication-review plus $public-risk-check for artifact files and visible data.
Output Contract
Return:
recommended path: one skill or ordered skill sequence.why: one or two sentences explaining the route.needed input: only the missing artifact or context that changes the next step.first action: the exact next skill to run.
When proceeding into another skill, include only a one-line routing note before the actual work. Keep routing compact. A router answer should reduce confusion, not become another review or an extra approval step.
