Pick model
Agents Skills
npx -y skills add pantheon-org/tekhne --skill pick-modelAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 9 stars9 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Recommend optimal Claude model (haiku/sonnet/opus) for a task. Use when user asks "which model", "pick model", "model for", or before starting costly/complex tasks. Covers tech and non-tech tasks.
SKILL.md
12.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Pick Model
Classify user's task β recommend optimal model with reasoning.
Instructions
- Parse task description from
$ARGUMENTS - Classify against decision matrix below
- Output recommendation using format template
Decision Matrix
Technical Tasks
| Model | When to Use |
|---|---|
| π’ Haiku | Simple transforms, formatting, regex, typo fix, status query, template fill, data extraction, factual lookup (no reasoning), file conversion |
| π‘ Sonnet | Single-file coding, bug fix, code review, moderate debugging, test writing, PR review, standard refactoring, technical docs, API integration (known patterns) |
| π΄ Opus | Multi-file refactor (3+ files), architecture/design decisions, complex debugging (multi-system), framework migration, security audit, novel algorithm design, system design with trade-offs |
Business & Strategy Tasks
| Model | When to Use |
|---|---|
| π’ Haiku | Summarization (<2K words), data extraction, status reports, simple translations, template filling, meeting notes formatting |
| π‘ Sonnet | Content creation (blog, email, docs), research summaries, competitive analysis, standard business writing, persuasive proposals, marketing copy, customer communications |
| π΄ Opus | Strategic planning, business model design, M&A analysis, organizational design, change management plans, competitive strategy, market entry decisions, crisis response, stakeholder management (competing interests), long-form reports (>2K words), executive presentations with nuance |
Creative & Analysis Tasks
| Model | When to Use |
|---|---|
| π’ Haiku | Basic formatting, simple data viz suggestions, straightforward categorization |
| π‘ Sonnet | Creative writing, brainstorming (single framework), persona development, user research synthesis, A/B test analysis, survey analysis |
| π΄ Opus | Multi-framework brainstorming (SCAMPER + Starbursting + trade-off analysis), cross-session pattern detection, bias identification, retrospective analysis, ethical reasoning, strategic foresight, scenario planning |
Commands, Skills, Agents
| Model | When to Use |
|---|---|
| π’ Haiku | Simple conversions (PDF, EPUB), format checks, simple utilities, minimal reasoning |
| π‘ Sonnet | Standard workflows, context management, serialization, most skills/commands (DEFAULT) |
| π΄ Opus | Strategic analysis (brainstorm, retrospectives), multi-framework reasoning, high-stakes decisions, pattern detection across sessions |
Complexity Escalators
Upgrade one tier if task has ANY of these signals:
Technical Escalators
- Ambiguity: Underspecified requirements, multiple valid interpretations β +1 tier
- Scope: Affects 3+ files/systems/components β +1 tier
- Stakes: Production system, security, data-loss risk, regulatory compliance β +1 tier
- Novelty: No established pattern, novel algorithm, cutting-edge tech β +1 tier
Business Escalators
- Multiple stakeholders: Competing interests, need to balance trade-offs β +1 tier
- Strategic impact: Long-term consequences, irreversible decisions, organizational change β +1 tier
- Political sensitivity: Layoffs, restructuring, executive communications, crisis β +1 tier
- Cross-functional: Requires synthesis across domains (tech + business + legal) β +1 tier
Cognitive Escalators
- Pattern detection: Requires analyzing trends across multiple data points/sessions β +1 tier
- Bias identification: Needs to spot blindspots, cognitive biases, assumptions β +1 tier
- Ethical reasoning: Moral ambiguity, fairness considerations, unintended consequences β +1 tier
- Multi-framework: Applying 2+ analytical frameworks simultaneously β +1 tier
Cap at Opus. If multiple escalators apply, still cap at Opus (don't "double upgrade").
Decision Guidance
When uncertain between two models:
- Haiku vs Sonnet: Does it require any reasoning/judgment? β Sonnet
- Sonnet vs Opus: Are there trade-offs to balance or multiple valid approaches? β Opus
- Default rule: When in doubt, go one tier up (better quality > cost savings)
Quality vs Cost trade-offs:
- Cost-sensitive: Batch processing, exploratory work, drafts β prefer lower tier
- Quality-critical: Customer-facing, executive, production, irreversible β prefer higher tier
- Iteration-friendly: Can easily retry with higher tier if insufficient β start lower
Speed considerations:
- Haiku is ~3-5x faster than Sonnet, ~10x faster than Opus
- For latency-sensitive workflows (UI feedback, real-time), prefer Haiku/Sonnet
- For batch/async work, speed matters less than quality
Output Format
[emoji] **[Model]** β [1-line reason]
π° Cost: [lowest/medium/highest] | β‘ Speed: [fastest/medium/slowest]
π‘ [Optional: "Consider [other model] if [condition]"]
Example output:
π΄ **Opus** β Multi-stakeholder strategic decision with trade-offs
π° Cost: highest | β‘ Speed: slowest
π‘ Consider Sonnet if this is exploratory (draft) rather than final recommendation
Examples
Technical Tasks
| Task | Recommendation | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| "fix typo in README" | π’ Haiku | Trivial single edit, no reasoning |
| "convert PDF to markdown" | π’ Haiku | Simple conversion, no decisions |
| "debug flaky integration test" | π‘ Sonnet | Single-system debugging, moderate reasoning |
| "refactor auth across 15 files" | π΄ Opus | Multi-file (3+ escalator) + architectural decisions |
| "design database schema for e-commerce" | π΄ Opus | Architectural decision with trade-offs, long-term impact |
| "plan microservices migration strategy" | π΄ Opus | Complex architectural planning + strategic impact escalator |
Business & Strategy
| Task | Recommendation | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| "summarize this meeting transcript" | π’ Haiku | Simple text transformation, <2K words |
| "extract action items from notes" | π’ Haiku | Data extraction, no reasoning |
| "write blog post about AI trends" | π‘ Sonnet | Creative writing, moderate reasoning |
| "draft sales proposal for enterprise client" | π‘ Sonnet | Persuasive writing, moderate reasoning |
| "analyze competitor pricing strategy" | π‘ Sonnet | Research/analysis, single framework |
| "plan market entry strategy for Europe" | π΄ Opus | Strategic impact + cross-functional + ambiguity escalators |
| "design organizational restructuring plan" | π΄ Opus | Political sensitivity + multiple stakeholders + strategic impact |
| "M&A due diligence analysis" | π΄ Opus | Strategic stakes + cross-functional synthesis required |
| "crisis communication plan for data breach" | π΄ Opus | Political sensitivity + stakes + multiple stakeholders |
Creative & Analysis
| Task | Recommendation | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| "translate paragraph to French" | π’ Haiku | Simple language transform, no reasoning |
| "brainstorm product names (single session)" | π‘ Sonnet | Creative generation, moderate reasoning |
| "brainstorm with SCAMPER + trade-off analysis" | π΄ Opus | Multi-framework escalator (SCAMPER + weighted scoring) |
| "retrospect: analyze collaboration patterns" | π΄ Opus | Pattern detection + bias identification escalators |
| "identify blindspots in strategy" | π΄ Opus | Bias identification + ethical reasoning escalators |
| "plan 3-day conference with speakers" | π΄ Opus | Complex scheduling + multiple stakeholders + constraints |
Commands, Skills, Agents
| Task | Recommendation | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| "command: convert EPUB to markdown" | π’ Haiku | Simple workflow, minimal reasoning |
| "command: save session context" | π‘ Sonnet | Context management, serialization logic |
| "command: brainstorm with research + SCAMPER" | π΄ Opus | Multi-framework escalator + strategic analysis |
| "command: retrospect domain learnings" | π΄ Opus | Pattern detection across sessions + bias identification |
| "skill: format code with prettier" | π’ Haiku | Simple deterministic task |
| "skill: standard workflow implementation" | π‘ Sonnet | Standard workflow, moderate reasoning |
| "agent: explore codebase architecture" | π΄ Opus | Complex exploration + architectural synthesis |
Philosophy
- Right-size, don't default up β the cheapest model that meets quality requirements is the correct choice; upgrading is easy, right-sizing takes discipline.
- Task type over task size β model selection depends on reasoning complexity, not the volume of text or files involved.
- Tier aliases over model names β use fast/balanced/reasoning tiers; specific model names change; tier semantics persist.
- Escalate explicitly β if a lower tier fails, escalate with a documented reason rather than defaulting to the top tier always.
When to Use
- When a user asks "which model should I use for this task?" before starting work
- When selecting between multiple LLM tiers for an automated agent workflow or pipeline
- When cost vs capability tradeoff needs to be explicit (e.g. batch jobs, production routing)
- When an agent must self-assign a model for a sub-task without human input
- When an existing workflow is over-spending on frontier models for simple tasks
When Not to Use
- When the model is already fixed by infrastructure constraints (e.g. a provider only offers one model)
- When the task has already been completed and model selection is moot
- When the user is asking about non-Claude providers and needs a cross-vendor comparison tool
- When fine-tuned or domain-specific models are the deciding factor, not tier
- When the decision depends on real-time pricing data not available in this skill
Anti-Patterns
- NEVER default to the most powerful model for every task β Oversized models inflate costs without quality gain on simple tasks. Why: A haiku/flash-class model handles classification and routing at 10x lower cost.
- NEVER pick a model based on benchmark leaderboards alone β Benchmark tasks often differ from production workloads. Why: Real task performance depends on prompt structure, context length, and domain specificity.
- NEVER hardcode model names in agent workflows β Providers rename and deprecate models frequently. Why: Hardcoded names break silently on deprecation; use model tier aliases (fast/balanced/reasoning).
- NEVER skip escalator checks for ambiguous tasks β Underestimating complexity leads to poor output requiring costly reruns. Why: A single missed escalator (e.g. multi-stakeholder, security risk) can push a task from Sonnet to Opus quality requirements.
- NEVER conflate speed preference with model tier β Choosing Haiku solely for latency on a reasoning-heavy task produces wrong answers. Why: Speed and capability are separate dimensions; use the decision matrix first, then consider latency constraints.
Usage Examples
Selecting a model for a code review task:
# Task: review 200-line TypeScript file for bugs
# Tier: balanced (Sonnet-class) β reasoning needed but not frontier
# Escalators: none (single file, no production risk flagged)
# Output: model alias + rationale
# -> Recommendation: Sonnet β single-file code review, moderate reasoning required
Routing a summarization request:
# Task: summarize 5 meeting notes into bullet points
# Tier: fast (Haiku-class) β no complex reasoning needed
# Escalators: none (<2K words, no stakeholder trade-offs)
# -> Recommendation: Haiku β simple text transformation, no judgment required
Classifying a strategic planning task:
# Task: design a market entry strategy for a new region
# Tier: reasoning (Opus-class)
# Escalators: strategic impact + cross-functional synthesis + ambiguity
# -> Recommendation: Opus β multiple escalators detected (strategic impact, ambiguity, cross-functional)
References
- Reference β extended decision matrix by file type and domain, cost/latency tradeoffs, edge cases, hybrid task patterns, and common mistakes