Task router

Task Router - CEO's Decision Engine

The brain of CodeCrew. When a task comes in, this skill classifies it, picks the right agents, decides the execution strategy, and kicks off the work.

When to Activate

• User runs /crew task "description"
• CEO agent needs to route a subtask

Prerequisites

These files MUST exist (run /crew init first):

• .claude/crew-profile.md — project context
• .claude/crew-team.json — agent configuration
• .claude/crew-skills.json — skill catalog
• .claude/crew-index.json — codebase index (Layer 1)
• .claude/crew-symbols.json — symbol map (Layer 2)

If any are missing, tell the user to run /crew init first.

Routing Algorithm

Step 1: Read Context

1. Check if .claude/.index-stale exists
   - If yes: read the file paths listed, invoke index-updater for those files, then delete .claude/.index-stale
   - This handles files edited outside of /crew task (e.g., manual edits, other tools)
2. Read .claude/crew-profile.md for project context
3. Read .claude/crew-team.json for available agents
4. Read .claude/crew-config.json (if exists) for user overrides (default mode, budgets, etc.)
5. Read .claude/crew-index.json for codebase awareness

Step 2: Classify Task

Task Type (pick one):

Type	Signals
bug-fix	"fix", "bug", "broken", "error", "crash", "not working", "issue"
feature	"add", "implement", "create", "build", "new", "feature"
refactor	"refactor", "clean up", "reorganize", "restructure", "improve"
docs	"document", "readme", "comment", "explain", "docs"
test	"test", "coverage", "spec", "TDD", "unit test", "e2e"
security	"security", "vulnerability", "auth", "permission", "XSS", "injection"
devops	"deploy", "docker", "CI/CD", "pipeline", "kubernetes", "build"
review	"review", "check", "audit", "quality"
performance	"slow", "optimize", "performance", "speed", "memory", "cache"

Complexity (assess based on scope):

Level	Signals
trivial	Single word change, typo, formatting, one-line fix
simple	Single file, clear fix, under 20 lines changed
moderate	2-4 files, some design decisions, 20-100 lines
complex	5+ files, architecture decisions, new patterns, 100+ lines
architectural	System-wide changes, new subsystems, major refactors

Step 3: Select Agent Chain

Based on (type, complexity), select the execution plan:

ROUTING TABLE:

bug-fix:
  trivial    → junior-dev (haiku)
  simple     → debugger (sonnet) investigates → junior-dev (haiku) fixes
  moderate   → debugger (sonnet) investigates → senior-dev (sonnet) fixes
  complex    → CEO reads index → debugger investigates → senior-dev fixes → code-reviewer reviews
  architectural → CEO + vp-engineering analyze → debugger + senior-dev → vp-quality reviews

feature:
  trivial    → junior-dev (haiku)
  simple     → senior-dev (sonnet)
  moderate   → vp-engineering plans → senior-dev implements → test-engineer tests
  complex    → CEO + vp-engineering architect → [parallel: senior-dev implements, test-engineer writes tests] → code-reviewer reviews
  architectural → CEO designs → vp-engineering plans → [parallel: multiple senior-devs] → vp-quality reviews all

refactor:
  any        → vp-engineering plans → senior-dev executes → code-reviewer reviews

docs:
  any        → doc-writer (haiku)

test:
  trivial/simple → test-engineer (sonnet)
  moderate+  → vp-quality strategizes → test-engineer implements

security:
  any        → security-analyst (sonnet) → senior-dev fixes findings

devops:
  trivial/simple → devops-engineer (haiku)
  moderate+  → senior-dev (sonnet) handles complex infra

review:
  any        → code-reviewer (sonnet) → report to user

performance:
  any        → vp-engineering analyzes → senior-dev optimizes → test-engineer verifies

Step 4: Decide Execution Strategy

PARALLEL when:
- Subtasks operate on DIFFERENT files (check via crew-index.json)
- Implementation + test writing (test-engineer works on test files, senior-dev on source files)
- Multiple independent bug fixes
- Documentation for different components

SEQUENTIAL when:
- Investigation must complete before fix begins
- Planning must complete before implementation
- Implementation must complete before review
- Subtasks modify the SAME files

HYBRID (most common for moderate+ tasks):
1. Sequential: investigation/planning phase
2. Parallel: independent implementation subtasks
3. Sequential: integration review

Step 5: Inject Relevant Skills

Read .claude/crew-skills.json and select skills to inject into agent prompts:

1. Always include: "always" category skills
2. Add stack-specific skills based on detectedStack
3. Add task-type skills based on classified type
4. Each agent gets ONLY the skills relevant to their subtask (not all skills)

Step 6: Generate Execution Plan

Create a structured plan before executing:

[FULL] {type}/{complexity}: "{task}"
  1. {agent} → {subtask}
  2. {agent} + {agent} → {subtask A} | {subtask B}
  3. {agent} → {review}

Display this plan to the user, then execute.

Step 7: Execute

Use the execution-orchestrator skill to dispatch agents according to the plan.

For each agent dispatch, construct a self-contained prompt that includes:

1. The subtask description
2. Relevant project context from crew-profile.md
3. The Index-First Protocol instructions
4. Injected skill guidance
5. Files the agent should focus on (from index analysis)
6. Expected output format

Step 8: Collect Results & Report

After all agents complete:

1. Collect each agent's output
2. Check for conflicts (multiple agents editing same lines)
3. If conflicts: escalate to vp-engineering for resolution
4. Auto-update index for all FILES_MODIFIED (handled automatically by execution-orchestrator)
5. Log task to .claude/crew-history.json (including skillsInjected and agent details)
6. Report final status to user (including index update status and skills injected)
7. Include skills used in the report — execution-orchestrator's Result Collection template handles the format

Error Handling

• If agent fails → retry once with more context
• If agent reports index is stale → trigger incremental update, then retry
• If parallel agents conflict → fall back to sequential for conflicting files
• If task is unclear → CEO asks user for clarification instead of guessing