Skip to content

Research: evolve native routing into automatic visible routing #7

Description

@joaomj

Parent map: #1

Decision to resolve

How should TinyHarness evolve native explicit model routing into automatic model selection that remains visible and overridable?

Product requirement

Choose models according to task or prompt type, difficulty, capability, latency, and cost; briefly explain the choice and allow override. Preserve native routing capabilities by default.

Questions

  • What routing behavior already exists and where does it apply?
  • Should routing occur per session, user turn, plan task, or provider retry?
  • Which signals are reliable without adding another expensive model call?
  • When must the user choice override automation?
  • How are unavailable models, routing failure, and mid-session model changes handled?
  • What observations are needed to evaluate routing quality later?

Output

A recommended product behavior and measurable routing policy boundaries, not an implementation.

Resolves when

Automatic routing has predictable user control, fallback, and visibility semantics.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

researchPrimary-source investigation that resolves a decisionwayfinderDecision map and wayfinding work

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions