Agentsop query routing

Query-Type Routing · Enhancement Overlay

Third-person operating model for a coder agent that owns a multi-handler answering surface. Audience is the LLM agent writing/reviewing the routing code — not the end user.

One sentence: A retriever is shaped by the query type it was built for; a summary index, a vector index, and a text-to-SQL engine are not interchangeable — so classify the query and route first, then retrieve.

This is an ENHANCE overlay. It distills the cross-framework routing pattern from three source skills. For the per-framework API, cross-link the base skill: [[llamaindex]] (RouterQueryEngine), [[agentsop-dify]] (Question Classifier node), [[agentsop-langgraph]] (conditional edges).

---

1. 何时激活 (Activation Rules)

Activate when any of the following holds:

1. The system has multiple indices / tools / engines behind one entry point, and a query must be dispatched to exactly one (or a few) of them.
2. Inbound queries differ in kind — at least two of: lookup ("what does the contract say about termination"), summarize ("give me the gist of doc Y"), compute/aggregate ("how many tickets closed last week"), compare ("diff the 2024 vs 2025 policy").
3. A VectorStoreIndex (or any single retriever) is being stretched to answer query types it was not built for, and quality is uneven across the mix.
4. The user names a routing primitive: RouterQueryEngine, SelectorPromptTemplate, LLMSingleSelector, Dify Question Classifier, LangGraph add_conditional_edges, "intent classifier", "text-to-SQL or RAG".
5. PR review touches a function that reads a query and returns which handler to call.

Do not activate when:

• One index/tool serves every query correctly — routing adds an LLM hop and a failure mode for no benefit (see §6 anti-pattern A1).
• The split is by who is asking (tenant / ACL), not what is asked — that is filtering, route to [[agentsop-multi-tenant-rag]].
• The downstream choice is fixed (always retrieve then summarize) — that is a static edge / linear pipeline, not a router.

---

2. 核心心智模型 (Core Mental Model)

Three principles. Violating any of them produces a router that misroutes silently or routes when it should not.

Principle 1 — One retriever cannot serve all query types

The index taxonomy is not cosmetic. From [[llamaindex]]: a SummaryIndex is a "small, fan-out synthesis" primitive — it reads every node to digest a doc; a VectorStoreIndex is top-k semantic lookup — it reads the few most similar chunks; a text-to-SQL engine answers aggregate/compute queries that no chunk contains the answer to. Ask a vector index to "summarize the whole document" and it returns 4 arbitrary chunks; ask a summary index "what is the late-fee clause" and it fans out over the whole corpus wastefully. The query type names the correct primitive. Routing is the act of recovering that name at runtime.

Operational corollary: index.as_query_engine() over a single VectorStoreIndex answering a heterogeneous query mix is the symptom this skill exists to fix. The fix is per-type handlers + a router on top.

Principle 2 — Route first, retrieve second

Routing is a classification step that runs before any retrieval. It reads only the query (and optionally light context) and emits a destination, not an answer. This ordering is what bounds latency and cost: you pay for the router once, then exactly one downstream handler, instead of fanning out to all of them and merging. LlamaIndex's RouterQueryEngine, Dify's Question Classifier node feeding IF/ELSE branches, and LangGraph's conditional edge over state are the same shape — a selector function (query) -> handler_id evaluated up front. The three frameworks differ only in how the selector is implemented (§7).

Principle 3 — A router is only as good as its destinations' descriptions

Every router — LLM, embedding, or keyword — picks among destinations described in words or examples. In LlamaIndex the signal is the QueryEngineTool.description; in Dify it is the class label + instruction; in LangGraph it is whatever the routing function reads off state plus the node names. From [[llamaindex]] Dilemma 3: "invest in QueryEngineTool.description — it's the only signal the router/agent sees." A misroute is, four times out of five, a bad description, not a bad model. Fix the description before swapping the router type.

The fourth case is genuinely ambiguous queries — for those, Principle of Fallback (§3 Stage 4) applies: route to a safe default, never guess silently.

---

3. SOP 工作流 (Agentic Protocol)

Five stages. Each gates the next. Stop and reconsider at the first "no".

Stage 0 — Confirm routing is warranted

Gate questions:

• Are there genuinely ≥2 handlers with different query-type fit? If no → single index, no router (anti-pattern A1).
• Does real traffic actually span query kinds? Sample 50 real queries and label them. If >90% are one kind → build that handler well; skip the router.
• Is the choice query-dependent (not fixed)? If fixed → static edge.

If all three are yes, continue.

Stage 1 — Enumerate the query types and their handlers

Build the table before writing the router. One row per query kind:

Query kind	Example	Correct handler	Primitive
Summarize / digest	"summarize the Q3 report"	summary engine	SummaryIndex
Fact lookup	"what is the late-fee clause"	vector engine	VectorStoreIndex + filters
Compute / aggregate	"how many orders shipped in Q3"	text-to-SQL engine	NL2SQL over the DB
Compare / multi-hop	"diff 2024 vs 2025 policy"	decomposition engine	SubQuestionQueryEngine
Out of scope	"what's the weather"	default / refuse	fallback handler

This table is the spec for both the handlers and the router. Mapping mirrors [[llamaindex]] Stage 4 ("Compose for query heterogeneity").

Stage 2 — Build one handler per type, in isolation

Implement and test each engine independently against its own query kind before wiring the router. A misroute is undebuggable if the handlers themselves are wrong. Author each handler's description / label here (Principle 3) — the destination metadata is part of the handler, not the router.

Stage 3 — Write the router (pick the cheapest sufficient family)

Three router families, cheapest to most capable:

Family	How it decides	Pick when
Keyword / rule	regex / substring / heuristic over the query	destinations are lexically distinct ("SELECT", "summarize", file extensions); latency-critical; cost-critical
Embedding / semantic	embed query, nearest destination description	destinations semantically distinct but not lexically; no per-call LLM budget; deterministic-ish
LLM / selector	LLM reads query + descriptions, returns choice (single or multi)	destinations need reasoning to disambiguate; multi-select needed; quality > latency

Default ladder: start keyword if the types are lexically separable; else LLM selector; reach for embedding when you want a middle point (no LLM hop, better than keyword). Always emit a confidence / score, never just a label.

Stage 4 — Add the fallback default (non-negotiable)

Every router must define behavior for the unrouteable query:

• LLM selector returns low confidence / no match → route to a documented default handler (usually the broad vector index) or an explicit "I can't answer that" path. Never let an ambiguous query silently hit a random branch.
• Set a confidence threshold: below it → fallback, not best-guess.
• Log every routing decision {query_hash, chosen_handler, score, fell_back} so misroutes are observable, not anecdotal.

A router with no fallback is the single most common production failure here (anti-pattern A2).

---

4. 操作模型 (Operation Models)

Format: Trigger / Action / Output / Evidence.

OP-01 EnumerateQueryTypes

• Trigger: A single endpoint fronts heterogeneous queries; no type table exists.
• Action: Sample ≥50 real queries, label each by kind (summarize / lookup / compute / compare / out-of-scope), map each kind to its correct handler + primitive (Stage 1 table).
• Output: A query-type → handler spec table that drives both handler build and router design.
• Evidence: [[llamaindex]] Stage 0 ("What is the query distribution?") + Stage 4 heterogeneity table.

OP-02 BuildPerTypeHandler

• Trigger: Type table exists; handlers not yet built.
• Action: Implement one engine per type (SummaryIndex for digest, VectorStoreIndex for lookup, NL2SQL for compute, SubQuestionQueryEngine for compare). Test each against its own kind in isolation. Author its description/label.
• Output: N independently-verified handlers, each with a destination description (Principle 3).
• Evidence: [[llamaindex]] OP-06 RouteByQueryType; OP-07 DecomposeMultiHop.

OP-03 KeywordRouter

• Trigger: Destinations are lexically distinct; latency/cost-critical path.
• Action: regex/substring rules over the query → handler id; explicit default for no-match. No model call.
• Output: Sub-millisecond, deterministic, free routing for the separable cases.
• Evidence: [[agentsop-dify]] IF/ELSE node over query; [[agentsop-langgraph]] conditional edge as a pure Python predicate (add_conditional_edges).

OP-04 EmbeddingRouter

• Trigger: Destinations semantically (not lexically) distinct; no LLM budget per call.
• Action: Embed the query, cosine-match against pre-embedded destination descriptions / few examples per route; pick argmax; threshold for fallback.
• Output: Cheap, low-latency semantic routing without an LLM hop.
• Evidence: [[llamaindex]] EmbeddingSingleSelector family; router docs.

OP-05 LLMSelectorRouter

• Trigger: Disambiguation needs reasoning; or a query maps to multiple handlers.
• Action: Use an LLM selector (single or multi) reading the query + each handler's description; return chosen id(s) + reasoning. In LlamaIndex: RouterQueryEngine(selector=LLMSingleSelector.from_defaults(), query_engine_tools=[...]).
• Output: Highest-accuracy routing including multi-route fan-out; costs one LLM round-trip.
• Evidence: [[llamaindex]] OP-06 + Dilemma 3; SelectorPromptTemplate.

OP-06 ConfidenceThresholdFallback

• Trigger: Any router that can be uncertain (LLM/embedding) on ambiguous queries.
• Action: Read the selector's score; below threshold → route to documented default (broad vector index) or explicit refuse path. Never best-guess silently.
• Output: Unrouteable queries land somewhere safe and auditable.
• Evidence: [[agentsop-langgraph]] conditional edge can return a "__default__" branch; [[agentsop-dify]] Question Classifier has a built-in "other/else" class.

OP-07 RouteDecisionLogging

• Trigger: Any production router.
• Action: Log {ts, query_hash, chosen_handler, selector_score, fell_back} on every decision; surface a misroute dashboard.
• Output: Misroutes become observable metrics, not user-reported anecdotes.
• Evidence: [[agentsop-dify]] 7-class trace incl. routing; [[agentsop-langgraph]] LangSmith trace of the conditional edge.

OP-08 DescriptionFirstDebug

• Trigger: Router misroutes a known query class.
• Action: Before swapping router type, rewrite the destination description / add 1-2 disambiguating examples; re-evaluate on a labeled routing eval set.
• Output: Most misroutes fixed at the description layer, no model change.
• Evidence: [[llamaindex]] Dilemma 3 ("the only signal the router sees").

---

5. 困境决策案例 (Dilemma Cases)

Dilemma 1 — Router misroutes: improve the classifier or add a fallback?

困境: A 3-way router (summary / lookup / SQL) misroutes ~12% of queries — some lookup queries land on the SQL engine and error out. The team is split: fine-tune / swap to a bigger LLM selector, vs. add a catch-all fallback.

约束:

• Bigger LLM selector adds latency + cost to every query to fix 12%.
• A pure fallback masks the misroute but still sends those queries somewhere generic, lowering answer quality for the 12%.
• The misroutes cluster: most are lookup queries phrased like questions the SQL engine "thinks" it can answer.

决策步骤:

1. Diagnose before fixing — pull the routing log (OP-07); cluster the 12%. The clustering reveals it's a description problem, not a model problem (the SQL engine's description over-claims).
2. Fix descriptions first (OP-08) — tighten the SQL handler's description to "aggregate/count/sum over the orders table only"; add 2 negative examples. Re-run the routing eval set. Misroute drops to ~4%.
3. Then add fallback (OP-06) for the residual ambiguous tail — low-confidence → broad vector index, not SQL.
4. Only if still bad consider the bigger selector — but now on 4%, the cost/benefit usually says no.

结果: Description fix + fallback, no model change. The two moves are complementary, not either/or: improve the classifier signal (descriptions) and add a fallback for the irreducible ambiguity. Mirrors [[llamaindex]] Dilemma 3's "fix the supervisor before switching paradigms" logic and [[agentsop-langgraph]]'s "hitting the limit means the logic is wrong" stance.

可提取的操作: OP-08, OP-06, OP-07.

Dilemma 2 — LLM router latency vs cheap keyword router

困境: An LLM selector routes correctly but adds ~600ms + a token cost to every query. Traffic is high-QPS and most queries are lexically obvious ("summarize…", SQL-shaped, or a plain question). Is the LLM hop worth it?

约束:

• The LLM selector is accurate but is now the p95 latency bottleneck and a per-query cost line.
• A keyword router is free and instant but brittle on the genuinely ambiguous tail.
• [[agentsop-dify]]'s known per-node latency overhead and [[agentsop-langgraph]]'s "checkpoint serialisation adds overhead, latency budget <200ms" boundary both argue against an LLM hop on every request.

决策步骤:

1. Measure the separable fraction — what % of queries a cheap keyword/regex router classifies with high confidence? Sample says ~80%.
2. Tier the router: cheap keyword/embedding router first; only the residual ~20% (no confident keyword match) escalates to the LLM selector. This is the routing analog of [[llamaindex]]'s "exhaust cheap knobs first" and [[agentsop-langgraph]]'s "promote upward only as needed" ladder.
3. Set the keyword-confidence bar high — a wrong cheap route is worse than a slow correct one; when in doubt, escalate.
4. Re-measure p95 and cost; the LLM hop now runs on 20% of traffic.

结果: A two-tier (cascade) router — cheap router handles the obvious majority instantly, LLM selector handles the ambiguous minority. Cost and p95 drop ~5×; accuracy is preserved because the cheap tier only acts when confident. Reserve the LLM selector for where reasoning is actually required (Principle 2 + the §3 Stage 3 ladder).

可提取的操作: OP-03, OP-04, OP-05, OP-06.

Dilemma 3 — Route to one handler vs multi-select fan-out

困境: Some queries legitimately need two handlers ("summarize the contract and tell me the late-fee clause"). A single-select router forces a wrong binary choice.

约束:

• Multi-select doubles downstream cost and needs a synthesis step to merge.
• Most queries are single-intent; defaulting to multi-select wastes spend.

决策步骤:

1. Quantify the multi-intent fraction from the routing log. If <10% → keep single-select + fallback; accept occasional follow-up.
2. If material → use a multi-selector (LlamaIndex LLMMultiSelector / Dify branching to multiple nodes / LangGraph Send fan-out to multiple handlers) and add a synthesis node to merge results.
3. Never make multi-select the default — it converts a routing problem into a fan-out + merge problem with the cost of both.

结果: Single-select by default; multi-select only on the measured multi-intent slice, paired with explicit synthesis. Mirrors [[agentsop-langgraph]] "don't fan out with Send for fixed-cardinality work."

可提取的操作: OP-05, OP-07.

---

6. 反模式与边界 (Anti-patterns & Boundaries)

Top anti-patterns (red flags in code review)

#	Anti-pattern	Why it's wrong	Correct move
A1	Adding a router when one index already serves every query	Pure overhead: an extra hop + a new failure mode for zero benefit	Single index; route only when ≥2 handlers differ in fit (Stage 0)
A2	Router with no fallback / default branch	Ambiguous or out-of-scope queries hit a random or erroring handler	Confidence threshold → documented default / refuse (OP-06)
A3	LLM selector on every query when keyword would do	p95 latency + per-query token cost for separable traffic	Tier: cheap router first, LLM only for the ambiguous tail (Dilemma 2)
A4	Vague destination descriptions	Router can't disambiguate; misroutes blamed on the model	Author precise descriptions + examples; fix here first (OP-08)
A5	No routing decision logging	Misroutes surface as user complaints, not metrics	Log {query, chosen, score, fell_back} per decision (OP-07)
A6	Routing by tenant/permission instead of query kind	That's access control, not query routing	Use [[agentsop-multi-tenant-rag]] filter at the store; route by kind only
A7	Multi-select as the default	Doubles cost + needs merge for mostly single-intent traffic	Single-select default; multi only on measured multi-intent slice (Dilemma 3)
A8	Best-guess on low confidence	Silent wrong route degrades the answer with no signal	Below threshold → fallback, never guess (OP-06)
A9	Tuning the router before the handlers work	A misroute is undebuggable atop broken handlers	Build + verify each handler in isolation first (Stage 2)

Boundaries — when query routing is not the move

• B1 One index/tool answers everything correctly → no router (A1).
• B2 The split is by who asks (tenant, ACL) → [[agentsop-multi-tenant-rag]].
• B3 The downstream is a fixed sequence (always retrieve→summarize) → static edge / linear pipeline, no selector.
• B4 Hard real-time (<200ms) and an LLM selector is the only correct router → measure first; tier to a keyword/embedding front, escalate rarely (Dilemma 2).
• B5 The choice is agentic/iterative (retrieve→reflect→re-query in a loop) → that's an agent loop, not a one-shot router; use [[agentsop-langgraph]] cycles.

PR review smells

• A RouterQueryEngine / classifier with no default / other branch.
• An LLM selector in a high-QPS hot path with no cheap pre-filter.
• QueryEngineTool(description="index") — uselessly vague description.
• Routing logic that reads tenant_id — that's filtering, not routing.
• A router whose handlers were never tested independently.
• No eval set of labeled (query, expected_handler) pairs gating router changes.

---

7. 跨框架对照 (Cross-Framework Reference)

The same selector (query) -> handler_id surface across the three base skills. All verified against the source SKILLs (May 2026). Cross-link the base skill for the full API.

7.1 LlamaIndex — RouterQueryEngine + selectors → [[llamaindex]]

from llama_index.core.query_engine import RouterQueryEngine
from llama_index.core.selectors import LLMSingleSelector  # or LLMMultiSelector,
                                                           #    EmbeddingSingleSelector
from llama_index.core.tools import QueryEngineTool

tools = [
    QueryEngineTool.from_defaults(
        query_engine=summary_engine,
        description="Useful for SUMMARIZING or digesting an entire document."),
    QueryEngineTool.from_defaults(
        query_engine=vector_engine,
        description="Useful for LOOKING UP a specific fact or clause."),
]
router = RouterQueryEngine(
    selector=LLMSingleSelector.from_defaults(),   # LLM selector family
    query_engine_tools=tools,                     # descriptions are the routing signal
)

The selector reads each QueryEngineTool.description (the only routing signal — Principle 3). Selector families: LLMSingleSelector, LLMMultiSelector, EmbeddingSingleSelector, PydanticSingleSelector. SelectorPromptTemplate customizes the LLM prompt. RouterQueryEngine over per-task indices is "often the correct top-level shape, not a single monolithic VectorStoreIndex" ([[llamaindex]] Principle 3 + OP-06).

7.2 Dify — Question Classifier node → [[agentsop-dify]]

The Question Classifier node (an LLM node) takes the query and emits one of N declared classes; each class wires to a downstream branch (Knowledge Retrieval / LLM / Code / HTTP / SQL-via-Code). It is the visual analog of an LLM selector. The built-in "other" class is the fallback (OP-06). Routing logic that doesn't need an LLM uses the IF/ELSE node (keyword/rule router, OP-03). Node taxonomy: Question Classifier, Parameter Extractor, IF/ELSE. The classifier's class label + instruction is the routing signal (Principle 3).

7.3 LangGraph — conditional edges as routers → [[agentsop-langgraph]]

def route(state) -> str:                          # the selector function
    q = state["query"]
    if looks_like_sql(q):     return "sql"        # keyword tier (OP-03)
    if score := classify(q):  return score.label  # LLM/embedding tier (OP-04/05)
    return "vector_default"                        # fallback (OP-06)

graph.add_conditional_edges("router", route,
                            {"sql": "sql_node",
                             "summary": "summary_node",
                             "vector_default": "vector_node"})

"Graph topology is just routing logic over state… a conditional edge reads state and picks a next node" ([[agentsop-langgraph]] Principle 3). The mapping dict's keys are the destinations; the route function is the selector — it can be keyword, embedding, or LLM, or a tier of all three (Dilemma 2). For genuine multi-route fan-out, return a list of Send(...) instead of one label.

7.4 Side-by-side

	LlamaIndex	Dify	LangGraph
Router primitive	RouterQueryEngine	Question Classifier node	add_conditional_edges
Selector impl	LLM / Embedding / Pydantic selector	LLM classifier (or IF/ELSE for rules)	any Python fn (keyword/embed/LLM)
Routing signal	QueryEngineTool.description	class label + instruction	node names + what route() reads
Fallback	selector default / catch-all tool	"other" class	a "__default__" branch
Multi-route	LLMMultiSelector	branch to multiple nodes	list of Send(...)
Deep skill	[[llamaindex]]	[[agentsop-dify]]	[[agentsop-langgraph]]

The three are the same pattern — classify the query up front, dispatch to the structurally-correct handler, fall back when uncertain. Pick the framework your stack already uses; the routing discipline (Principles 1-3, Stages 0-4) is identical.

---

References

• references/R1-source-evidence.md — every cited claim resolved to its source SKILL line.
• intermediate/operation_candidates.json — machine-readable operation list.

Source skills (cited inline as [[name]])

• [[llamaindex]] — llamaindex-sop-skill/SKILL.md (RouterQueryEngine, selectors, OP-06 RouteByQueryType, Dilemma 3, Index taxonomy).
• [[agentsop-dify]] — dify-sop-skill/SKILL.md (Question Classifier / IF-ELSE nodes, node taxonomy, per-node latency boundary).
• [[agentsop-langgraph]] — langgraph-sop-skill/SKILL.md (conditional edges as routers, Principle 3 topology-as-routing, Send fan-out, latency boundary).