README.md3 min read

Intent-Router

An intent compiler for AI agents.

Turns a vague request into a typed IntentSpec: it looks up what it can, asks only what it can't, calls out a request that contradicts itself, admits two readings, or rests on a premise your own repo already disproves, and refuses to emit while the intent is still underspecified. When the work gets handed off and carried out, it checks the result against the spec it wrote — one constraint at a time, not a vibe check.

What that buys you:

Prompt equity. You get the interaction of a senior engineer without having to learn prompt engineering — the gap between the top 1% of prompt writers and everyone else stops deciding what you get back. Say it the way you'd say it to a capable teammate, "add caching to the user API", and the skill writes the briefing a senior engineer would have written first. You stop coaxing the model and start putting it to work.
It asks one question, and the answer lands in the delivered code. Before anything reaches you it reads what your repo, ticket system or docs already answer, so the forty-six-question interview becomes the one question that genuinely needs your judgment — and in the delivery comparison, every run with the skill asks exactly that one question and 3 of 3 delivered caches state their failure policy, while none of the 5 bare deliveries do (report).
The work carries further. Every run ends in a machine-readable IntentSpec, saved to .intent/<intent>.intent.yaml before the reply that carries it, whose probed fields carry evidence pointers and which records its own state: still waiting on a question, settled, or already carried out. A later session reads that file before probing anything — an answered question is never asked again, a settled contract is implemented as written — and the result of checking the delivered work against it is written back into the same file. So the next agent, session or teammate starts from what you actually decided instead of zero.

What "installed" changes, in the diff itself

Same weak request, same fixture, same permissions, one line apart — bare vs. with the skill (N=5 bare, N=3 skill). Excerpted verbatim from each run's own diff.patch, the part that decides what happens when the cache itself fails:

Bare — no failure path exists to read. A downed Redis takes the request down with it:

const hit = await getCache<T>(key);
if (hit !== null) {
  return hit;
}
const value = await load();
if (value !== null) {
  await setCache(key, value);
}
return value;

With the skill — asked the one question no file could answer, then wrote the answer into the code:

async function readCache<T>(key: string): Promise<{ hit: boolean; value: T | null }> {
  try {
    return { hit: true, value: await getCache<T>(key) };
  } catch {
    return { hit: false, value: null };
  }
}

Every one of the 5 bare runs shipped the first shape; every one of the 3 skill runs shipped the second. Neither line was written by hand for this README — both come straight out of the runs that produced the numbers in Evals.

          "add caching to the user API"       "this customer is furious — sort it out"

Intent-Router

Continue your stack

Intent-Router

What "installed" changes, in the diff itself