Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

reasoning-router(推理路由器)

reasoning-router 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

reasoning-router 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为调用外部服务;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有未通过项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 54,235。

总安装 514周安装 21GitHub Stars 2下载 165核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:reasoning-router(推理路由器)
来源仓库:https://github.com/wyattowalsh/agents
仓库路径:skills/reasoning-router
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/wyattowalsh/agents --skill reasoning-router
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/wyattowalsh/agents --skill reasoning-router

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

用于根据关键词或任务场景快速定位候选结果。适合在需要检索相关信息时使用。可结合来源仓库和原始 README 核验具体用法。安装命令:npx skills add https://github.com/wyattowalsh/agents --skill reasoning-router。

安装前建议确认是否会触发联网或文件读写。

来源仓库内路径:skills/reasoning-router

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/wyattowalsh/agents --skill reasoning-router;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要调用外部服务,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

reasoning-router 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/wyattowalsh/agents --skill reasoning-router。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

reasoning-router 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

reasoning-router 需要什么权限?

权限级别是调用外部服务。该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

reasoning-router 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

reasoning-router 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 514 次,近一周安装 21 次,下载 165 次,GitHub 2 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

reasoning-router 安全吗?

第三方扫描有未通过项,风险较高。除非你确认过源码,否则不建议直接安装到常用环境。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
reasoning-router

推理路由器 · 本页

5142调用外部服务未明确未通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Reasoning Router

Meta-reasoning layer: classify problems, dispatch to the optimal thinking MCP, monitor progress, re-route on stall. Minimize total tokens to a high-confidence conclusion.

Always uses the most advanced model (currently Opus 4.6). Meta-reasoning about *how to think* is the highest-leverage reasoning task.

Dispatch

$ARGUMENTSAction
Problem or question textRoute — classify and dispatch to optimal thinking method
compare <problem>Compare — run 2-3 strategies on the same problem, pick best
statusStatus — show current thinking session state
switch <method>Switch — re-route to specified method mid-session
recapRecap — summarize reasoning so far across all methods used
methodsMethods — show available methods with when-to-use cheatsheet
EmptyGuide — show routing cheatsheet and token tier table

Classification

Run !uv run python skills/reasoning-router/scripts/problem-classifier.py "$ARGUMENTS" for deterministic pre-scan, then refine with LLM judgment.

Axis 1 — Structure (what shape is the reasoning?)

StructureSignalsPrimary Method
Decomposable"break down", multi-hop, sub-questionsatom-of-thoughts
Sequential"step by step", ordered process, debuggingsequential-thinking
Branching"explore options", "what if", alternativescascade-thinking
Constrained"given that", requirements, formal specsshannon-thinking
Interconnecteddependencies, circular, complex systematom-of-thoughts (full)
Creative"brainstorm", "novel", "stuck", "reframe"creative-thinking
Contradictoryparadox, "both true", tension, dilemmalotus-wisdom
Investigative"why did", root cause, debug, diagnosecrash

Axis 2 — Complexity (how deep?)

ComplexitySignalsDepth Control
Simple (1-3 steps)Short input, single concept, "quick"Tier 1 ONLY: aot-light or sequential
Moderate (4-8 steps)Multiple factors, some uncertaintyDefault depth, structure-matched method
Complex (9+ steps)Cross-domain, high uncertaintyFull depth, extended steps
Wicked (open-ended)No clear solution, values conflictComposition patterns allowed

Axis 3 — Domain (what kind?)

DomainMethodWhy
Engineering/architectureshannon-thinkingConstraints → model → proof
DebuggingcrashTool-aware investigation
Researchcascade-thinkingParallel perspectives
Math/logicatom-of-thoughtsDependency DAG
Strategythink-strategiesStrategy comparison
Creative/designcreative-thinkingLateral techniques
Philosophy/ethicslotus-wisdomNon-dual integration
Planningsequential-thinkingLinear progression
Pattern trackingstructured-thinkingPersistent memory

Routing Algorithm

Optimize for minimum total tokens to reach a high-confidence conclusion.

1. Run problem-classifier.py for deterministic signals
2. Score each axis (structure × complexity × domain)
3. Apply efficiency gate:
   - Simple: ALWAYS Tier 1 (aot-light or sequential-thinking)
   - Moderate: structure-matched method at default depth
   - Complex: full method with extended depth
   - Wicked: composition patterns allowed
4. Resolve conflicts:
   - Structure > domain (HOW > WHAT)
   - Complexity modulates depth AND tier
   - Ties: ALWAYS prefer lower token cost
5. Select primary + fallback
6. Present: "Using [method] — [why]. Fallback: [method]." (1 line)
7. Invoke with minimum viable totalThoughts
8. Monitor for stalls — escalate only on evidence

Token Cost Tiers

Tier 1 (lightest): aot-light, sequential-thinking
Tier 2 (moderate): structured-thinking, cascade-thinking, crash
Tier 3 (heavy):    shannon-thinking, atom-of-thoughts (full), think-strategies
Tier 4 (heaviest): creative-thinking, deep-lucid-3d, lotus-wisdom

Efficiency Rules

  • Never Tier 3-4 for a problem Tier 1-2 can handle
  • Start with lowest viable totalThoughts; expand only on needsMoreThoughts
  • cascade-thinking: start 2 branches max; add only if coverage insufficient
  • creative-thinking: use timeframe: "quick" unless wicked
  • think-strategies: start with linear or chain_of_thought before heavier strategies

Stall Detection

Read references/stall-detection.md when any stall signal fires.

4 stall signals:

  1. Confidence plateau — no increase >0.05 in 3+ steps
  2. Circular reasoning — same claim restated
  3. Step overrun — exceeds 2× initial estimate
  4. User signal — "try something else" or /think switch

Re-routing by block type:

BlockNew MethodWhy
Stuck in depthcascade-thinkingBroaden
Too broadatom-of-thoughtsDecompose
Too formalcreative-thinkingReframe
Too abstractcrashGround in evidence
Contradictionslotus-wisdomIntegrate
Wrong methodReclassifyStart routing over

Hard limits: Max 3 re-routes per session. Max 3× step estimate. No ping-pong (can't return to a method already re-routed from). After 3 re-routes → recovery protocol: present findings, ask user to guide.


Composition Patterns

Read references/composition-patterns.md for full protocols.

PatternSequenceWhen
Sketch→Detailaot-light → aot (full)Quick outline then deep dive
Diverge→Convergecreative-thinking → sequentialGenerate options then evaluate
Explore→Formalizecascade-thinking → shannonSurvey landscape then prove
Decompose→Investigateaot → crash (per atom)Break down then debug each
Analyze→Integratecascade-thinking → lotus-wisdomSurface contradictions then synthesize
Strategize→Planthink-strategies → sequentialStep back then plan forward

Context transfer: At every method transition, produce ≤100 word summary of key findings with confidence scores. Carry claims, drop scaffolding.

When NOT to compose: Simple/moderate complexity, first method is converging, time pressure is high.


Compare Mode

When invoked with compare <problem>:

  1. Classify the problem normally
  2. Select 2-3 candidate methods (primary + 1-2 plausible alternatives)
  3. Run each for 3-5 steps on the same problem
  4. Compare: which produced higher-confidence findings with fewer tokens?
  5. Present comparison table and recommend the winner
  6. Continue with the winning method if user agrees

Methods Quick Reference

When invoked with methods or for the routing cheatsheet:

MethodMCP ToolTierSweet Spot
sequential-thinkingsequentialthinking1Linear, ordered reasoning
aot-lightaot-light1Quick atomic sketches
structured-thinkingcapture_thought2Cross-session memory
cascade-thinkingcascade_thinking2Multi-perspective exploration
crashcrash2Debugging with tool integration
shannon-thinkingshannonthinking3Formal proof under constraints
atom-of-thoughtsaot + atomcommands3Deep decomposition with DAG
think-strategiesthink-strategies3Named strategy frameworks
creative-thinkingdiscover_techniques → plan → execute4Lateral thinking (3-step required)
deep-lucid-3danalyze_problem4Holistic UCPF analysis
lotus-wisdomlotuswisdom (start: tag: begin)4Paradox and contradiction

Read references/capability-map.md for full tool parameters and workflows.


Reference File Index

FileRead When
references/capability-map.mdFirst invocation or unfamiliar with a tool's parameters
references/routing-matrix.mdResolving routing conflicts, ties, or edge cases
references/composition-patterns.mdProblem needs a multi-tool sequence
references/stall-detection.mdStall signal fires or session exceeds expected steps

Load ONE reference at a time. Do not preload.


Scope Boundaries

In scope: Problem classification, thinking MCP dispatch, stall detection, re-routing, composition pattern selection, method comparison.

Out of scope: Actually performing the reasoning (the thinking MCP does that), running tools or writing code (use appropriate skills), code review (honest-review), research (research), debugging implementation (use crash MCP directly).


Canonical Vocabulary

TermMeaning
methodA specific thinking MCP tool (e.g., cascade-thinking)
tierToken cost classification (1=lightest, 4=heaviest)
structureThe shape of reasoning a problem requires
routingSelecting the best method for a classified problem
stallWhen a method stops making progress (confidence plateau, circular reasoning)
re-routeSwitching to a different method mid-session
compositionChaining 2+ methods sequentially for complex problems
efficiency gateOverride that forces Tier 1 methods for simple problems
context transferSummarizing findings when switching between methods

Critical Rules

  1. Always use the most advanced model — model: opus. Never downgrade.
  2. Minimize total tokens to conclusion — pick the lightest method that handles the problem. Escalate only on evidence of stall.
  3. Present routing decision before invoking — 1 line: method, why, fallback.
  4. Never invoke without classification — even if user names a method, validate fit.
  5. Carry forward on re-route — summarize findings ≤100 words, don't restart.
  6. Simple gets simple — Tier 1 for simple problems, always. No exceptions.
  7. Token cost breaks ties — equal fit → lower tier wins.
  8. Start minimal, expand on evidence — lowest totalThoughts, expand only when the tool requests more or stall detected.
  9. One method at a time — no simultaneous thinking MCPs. Composition is sequential.
  10. Router ≠ thinker — classify, dispatch, monitor. Don't duplicate reasoning.
  11. Respect tool workflows — creative-thinking: discover→plan→execute. lotus-wisdom: start with tag: begin. aot: use atomcommands for control.
  12. Track token spend — note approximate tokens per session to refine routing.

平台分布

Codex

33.6%
按下载量换算55

Claude

30.87%
按下载量换算51

Cursor

18.71%
按下载量换算31

Gemini CLI

10.31%
按下载量换算17

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

未通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

调用外部服务

该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills