lemonade-router-builder — Claude Code skill: setup and features
This skill converts plain-English routing instructions into a valid Lemonade collection.router policy JSON. Use it to split traffic between small local models and larger cloud LLMs.
npx skills add amd/skills --skill lemonade-router-builder -a claude-codeWhat lemonade-router-builder does
The skill builds a collection.router JSON document for Lemonade from your spoken or written instructions. It prepares the required envelope with version: "1", a derived name matching user.<Name>, and the collection.router recipe. You can configure either an LLM judge via routing.router or deterministic filtering through routing.rules.
Authoring does not need an active GPU or ROCm. The bundled scripts/validate.py script checks the resulting schema offline using standard Python 3.x. Note that routing.router and routing.rules are strictly mutually exclusive: putting both blocks into one configuration will fail server validation immediately.
This helper only generates and validates the policy file. It never calls the running server. To actually run and test requests, you need Lemonade Server v11.5.0 or newer started locally via lemonade server start.
What it helps with
- generate a collection.router policy JSON from natural language
- split inference traffic between local and cloud models
- configure keyword and PII classifier routing rules
- validate router schemas offline using scripts/validate.py
Example prompts for the agent
- Configure Lemonade router to send sensitive queries to Gemma-3-4b-it-GGUF and everything else to Qwen3.5-9B-GGUF
- Generate a collection.router JSON policy to route requests between a small local model and a cloud model
- Create deterministic routing rules using keyword detection and fallback handling
How to install lemonade-router-builder
1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add amd/skills --skill lemonade-router-builder -a claude-code2Manually: put the files in place
~/.claude/skills/lemonade-router-builder/SKILL.mdCopy the whole skill folder; for one project use .claude/skills/lemonade-router-builder/
1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add amd/skills --skill lemonade-router-builder -a codex2Manually: put the files in place
.agents/skills/lemonade-router-builder/SKILL.mdFor all projects use ~/.agents/skills/
1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add amd/skills --skill lemonade-router-builder -a cursor2Manually: put the files in place
.cursor/skills/lemonade-router-builder/SKILL.mdCursor also reads .agents/skills/ and .claude/skills/
1GitHub CLI
gh skill install amd/skills lemonade-router-builder2Manually: put the files in place
.github/skills/lemonade-router-builder/SKILL.md1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add amd/skills --skill lemonade-router-builder -a gemini-cli2Platform CLI
gemini skills install https://github.com/amd/skills --path skills/lemonade-router-builderManually: put the files in place
.devin/skills/lemonade-router-builder/SKILL.mdThe legacy .windsurf/skills/ path still works
Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add amd/skills --skill lemonade-router-builder -a opencodeClaude.ai
Zip the folder and upload it in Settings → Capabilities → Skills
Step by step, with commands for each platform: How to install skills in Claude Code: five ways
Questions about lemonade-router-builder
How to install lemonade-router-builder in Claude Code?
Run npx skills add amd/skills --skill lemonade-router-builder -a claude-code. The skill will be registered and available in your Claude Code environment.
What does lemonade-router-builder do?
It converts natural-language routing descriptions into valid collection.router JSON policies for Lemonade Server. It fills unspecified options with safe defaults and supports LLM judge or deterministic rule modes.
What are the system requirements for this skill?
JSON generation and offline schema checking require only Python 3.x in your PATH. A running Lemonade Server v11.5.0+ is needed later only when you want to register and run the policy.
Source text
SKILL.md · MIT
---
name: lemonade-router-builder
description: >-
Turns a natural-language description of routing intent into a valid Lemonade
`collection.router` policy JSON. The skill generates and validates the JSON
only - it does not register it or call the live server.
Use when the user wants to route requests between models ("route sensitive
queries to X and everything else to Y"), generate a router/hybrid-router
config or policy, author a collection.router JSON, split traffic between a
small local model and a big/cloud model, add PII/jailbreak/topic classifiers
to routing, or mentions Lemonade Router, routing rules, routing.router,
candidates/default_model, keywords_any, semantic_similarity, or LLM-as-router.
Fills every field the user did not specify with safe defaults.
---
# Lemonade Router Config Generator
Generate a **`collection.router` policy JSON** from a plain-English description
of how requests should be routed. The skill produces and validates the JSON
only - it does not call the live server, register the policy, or run requests
through it. The JSON is accepted by the strict server-side parser on the first
try and stays editable in the desktop app's Hybrid Router editor.
## Prerequisites
- **Lemonade Server v11.5.0+** running locally (`lemonade server start`).
Required only to register and test the generated policy - the skill itself
(JSON generation + offline validation) works without a live server.
- **No GPU or ROCm dependency** for authoring. The router policy is a JSON
document; no hardware is needed to generate or validate it.
- **Python** (any 3.x) in PATH - used by the bundled offline validator
(`scripts/validate.py`). No extra packages required.
The router picks one **candidate** model per request. Two authoring modes
exist, and choosing the right one is the first decision:
| Mode | JSON shape | When |
|------|-----------|------|
| **LLM-as-router** | `routing.router` block | The user describes intent only by *meaning* ("sensitive", "hard questions", "creative writing") with no concrete signals. A small LLM reads each prompt and picks the candidate. |
| **Rules** | `routing.rules` (+ optional `routing.classifiers`) | The user names any concrete signal: keywords, regex, length, tools, images, metadata, PII/topic classifiers, thresholds, "first match", fallback logic. Deterministic, no extra LLM call for simple conditions. |
`routing.router` is **mutually exclusive** with `routing.rules` and
`routing.classifiers` - never emit both.
## Step 1 - Extract from the user's words
- **Candidates**: the models that may *answer* requests. Verbatim model names
(e.g. `Gemma-3-4b-it-GGUF`). If the user names none, ask - never invent
model names. `lemonade list` or `GET /api/v1/models` shows what's available.
A name the user *did* give may still not exist on the target host - the
offline validator can't check that (Step 8b closes the gap).
- **Default / fallback**: which candidate gets everything that matches nothing.
If unstated, use the model the user framed as "local", "small", or "safe";
otherwise the first candidate mentioned.
- **Signals**: every condition mentioned (keywords, patterns, length, images,
tools, topics, PII, safety) and which model each one routes to.
- **Classifier models**: models named for *detection* rather than answering
(BERT-style encoders, embedding models, an LLM used as judge).
## Step 2 - Scaffold
Always exactly this envelope (the parser rejects unknown or missing keys):
```json
{
"version": "1",
"model_name": "user.MyHybridRouter",
"recipe": "collection.router",
"components": [],
"routing": { }
}
```
- `version` is the literal string `"1"`.
- `model_name` must start with `user.`; slug from the user's description if
they gave a name (`user.<Name>` using only `[A-Za-z0-9._-]`). If they didn't
name it, derive one from context instead of a fixed literal - e.g.
`user.<slug-of-default-candidate>-Router` - so two different policies don't
collide by default. **`/pull` is idempotent per `model_name`: registering a
second policy under the same name silently overwrites the first.** If this
conversation already produced an unnamed router, don't reuse the same
derived name for the next one - ask, or pick a visibly different name.
## Step 3 - Candidates and default
```json
"candidates": ["<answering models>"],
"default_model": "<one of candidates>"
```
`default_model` MUST be listed in `candidates`. Candidates should be
chat-capable LLMs - not embedding, classification, or image models.
## Step 4 - Mode A: LLM-as-router
```json
"router": {
"type": "llm",
"model": "<small chat LLM>",
"prompt": "You route user requests to the best model. <one sentence per candidate: when to pick it, using the exact model name>."
}
```
- `model` defaults to the **most capable candidate**, not the cheapest one.
The router judges every single request that flows through the policy, so a
weak judge silently misrouting everything is a worse default than the extra
cost of a stronger one. State the choice in the summary you give the user -
`router.model: <chosen>` (most capable candidate available; pick a smaller
dedicated judge model yourself for lower per-request cost, at the risk of
the failure mode below). If the user already named a separate model for
this role, use that instead of a candidate.
- If `default_used` stays `true` across varied test prompts even after fixing
the prompt (see the bullet below and Step 9), the fix is a more capable
`router.model`, not a further prompt edit - this is a judge-model-capability
limit, not something prompt wording alone can solve.
- **Write intent only - never specify a reply format and never use imperative
"Pick X" phrasing.** The engine unconditionally appends its own contract
after your prompt: it lists the candidate names and demands a strict JSON
reply `{"model": "<name>", "rationale": "<one sentence>"}`, then falls back
to `default_model` on any deviation. A prompt that says "reply with ONLY the
model name", "Pick Model-A", "respond with the model name", or similar is
wrong about the wire format and causes weaker judge models to reply with a
bare string that fails to parse - silently falling back to `default_model`
on every request with no visible error.
**Bad** (do not write): `"Pick Qwen3.5-9B-GGUF for sensitive queries, pick Qwen3.5-9B-NoThinking for everything else."`
**Good**: `"Route to Qwen3.5-9B-GGUF when the request appears sensitive or contains personal information. Route to Qwen3.5-9B-NoThinking for all other requests."`
Only describe *when* each candidate is appropriate. Never say "pick", "output", "reply with", or "respond with".
- **NEVER emit `rules` or `classifiers` in this mode.** The `routing` object
in Mode A must contain exactly: `candidates`, `default_model`, and `router`.
Adding `rules` or `classifiers` alongside `router` is a schema violation
that the server parser rejects. If you catch yourself writing both, stop and
remove `rules`/`classifiers` entirely.
## Step 5 - Mode B: classifiers
Only declare classifiers the rules actually reference. Three types:
```json
{ "id": "clf-1", "type": "classifier", "model": "<classification model>",
"labels": ["PII", "Jailbreak"], "default_label": "PII", "on_error": "match_false" }
{ "id": "clf-2", "type": "semantic_similarity", "model": "<embedding model>",
"reference_phrases": { "shopping": ["I want to shop for pants", "add to cart"] },
"default_label": "shopping", "on_error": "match_false" }
{ "id": "clf-3", "type": "llm", "model": "<chat LLM>",
"prompt": "Classify the request into only labels SAFE, RISKY",
"labels": ["SAFE", "RISKY"], "default_label": "SAFE", "on_error": "match_false" }
```
Hard constraints (parser-enforced - see `reference.md` for the full matrix):
- `classifier` type: model should be a text-classification model (an
`onnxruntime` encoder like `Bert-Phishing-ONNX`); `labels` must match the
model's actual output labels - unverifiable offline, and a mismatch
silently scores `0.0` forever (see `reference.md`'s classifier notes for
why, Step 8b for how to catch it). A chat LLM here is legal
(LLM-as-classifier via chat) but prefer `type: "llm"` for that - it is
explicit and prompted.
- `semantic_similarity`: `reference_phrases` is `{concept: [phrases...]}`,
at least one concept, each with at least one phrase. Concept names ARE the
labels - a `labels` key is **rejected** for this type. Model must be an
embedding model. Give 3–5 varied phrases per concept when inventing them.
- `llm`: `prompt` AND non-empty `labels` are both required. **Write intent
only - never tell the model how to format its reply.** The engine appends
its own `{"model": "<chosen_label>", "rationale": "..."}` contract after
your prompt (the same contract as `routing.router`). An authored line like
"Reply with exactly one label: SAFE or RISKY" causes weaker models to output
bare `SAFE`, which the parser rejects - the score comes back empty and the
rule silently never fires. Describe what makes a request belong to each
label; leave the reply format to the engine. If it still never fires after
that, see Step 4's judge-capability note above - the same fix applies here
(Step 9 shows how to catch it).
- `default_label`, when present, must be one of the labels/concepts.
- Defaults when unspecified: `id` = `clf-1`, `clf-2`, …; `on_error` =
`"match_false"` (fail-open: a broken classifier doesn't match, so requests
fall through - use `"match_true"` only when the user wants fail-closed
safety); `default_label` = the first label.
## Step 6 - Mode B: rules
```json
"rules": [
{ "id": "rule-1", "match": { ... }, "route_to": "<candidate>",
"outputs": { "reason": "<optional free-form>" } }
]
```
- **Order matters - first match wins.** Put the most specific /
privacy-critical rules first (a "sensitive stays local" rule must precede a
"code goes to the big model" rule, or coding prompts with PII leak).
- `route_to` MUST be a candidate. `id` uses only `[A-Za-z0-9._-]`; default
`rule-1`, `rule-2`, ….
- No rule for the "everything else" case - that is `default_model`.
**Match conditions** - combine with `all` (AND), `any` (OR), `not`; one
condition per leaf object; nesting is allowed:
| Leaf | Example | Notes |
|------|---------|-------|
| `keywords_any` / `keywords_all` | `{ "keywords_any": ["SSN", "Email"] }` | case-insensitive substring - `"hi"` matches inside `"this"`, `"shipping"`, `"high"`, etc. Use `regex` with `\b...\b` when word-boundary precision is needed |
| `regex` | `{ "regex": "\\b\\d{3}-?\\d{2}-?\\d{4}\\b" }` | ECMAScript flavor |
| `min_chars` / `max_chars` | `{ "min_chars": 4000 }` | input length, UTF-8 bytes, non-negative integer |
| `has_tools` / `has_images` | `{ "has_images": true }` | booleans |
| `classifier` | `{ "classifier": "clf-1", "label": "PII", "min_score": 0.5 }` | band test; `min_score`/`max_score` in [0,1]; default `min_score` 0.5; omit `label` only if the classifier has `default_label` |
| `metadata` | `{ "metadata": { "key": "consent", "equals": "denied" } }` | exactly one of `equals` / `any` / `exists`; note: not editable in the desktop UI yet - use only when the user asks for metadata routing |
## Step 7 - Components
`components` = union of: all `candidates` + every classifier `model` + the
`router.model` (Mode A). Deduplicate, keep order stable. The parser rejects
any referenced model that is not declared here.
## Step 8 - Validate and output curl commands
These two actions are a single mandatory step. Do not stop between them.
**8a. Run the offline validator** before presenting anything to the user:
```bash
python scripts/validate.py router.json # Windows
python3 scripts/validate.py router.json # macOS/Linux
```
It exits 0 with `"ready": true` when there are no errors. If it reports
errors, fix the JSON and re-run. Do not present a policy that fails this
check.
**8b. Immediately after validation passes, print these three curl commands**
as plain text for the user to copy and run. This is not optional. Fill in
`<model-id>` and `<model_name>` from the policy, and a short `<test prompt>`
that should hit the first rule. Do not execute these with Bash or any tool —
print them as text only.
`ready: true` from the validator only means the JSON is schema-valid - it
says nothing about whether these models exist on the target host. Run #1 for
every candidate/classifier model before #2, or `/pull` will 400 on a policy
that just passed validation.
```bash
# 1. Check a model exists before registering
curl http://localhost:13305/api/v1/models/<model-id>
# 2. Register the policy (idempotent - re-POST to update)
curl -X POST http://localhost:13305/api/v1/pull \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" --data-binary @router.json
# 3. Route a request and inspect the decision (-i prints response headers)
curl -i -X POST http://localhost:13305/api/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"model": "<model_name>", "route_trace": true,
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "<test prompt>"}]}'
```
The `x-lemonade-route` response header carries the matched rule id (or
`default`). With `"route_trace": true` the body also carries
`x_lemonade_route`: `{ route_to, matched_rule, default_used, outputs,
trace[] }`.
## Step 9 - Print instructions for the user to verify routing themselves
**This step is mandatory, not optional follow-up.** A policy that passed
validation and registered cleanly can still send every request to the wrong
model, or silently score `0.0` forever, with the server returning HTTP 200
and no error either way - and neither failure is visible from the JSON or
from Step 8a's validator. Per the skill's design, you never call the live
server yourself; instead, print the following as text so the user can run it
and read the result.
Print **two** test curl commands (adapt Step 8b's command #3 for both), one
phrased to clearly hit a specific rule (or Mode A intent), one phrased to hit
nothing so it should land on `default_model`. Then print these reading
instructions immediately after:
- Tell the user to check `x_lemonade_route` in each response, not just the
HTTP status.
- **Check `default_used`, not the rationale.** `"default_used": true` with
`"matched_rule": ""` is the fallback signature. An empty `rationale` alone
is *not* a fallback signal - a successful route to a non-first candidate
commonly returns one too.
- **For classifier-backed rules, check the per-condition `score` in
`trace[]`.** A score stuck at `0.0` on the request designed to clearly hit
that label means the declared `labels` entry doesn't match the model's real
output categories (Step 5) - not that the input failed to match.
- If either check fails, the fix is a more capable `router.model` for Mode A
misroutes, or a corrected `labels` entry for classifier mismatches - tell
the user to report the result back so you can revise and re-validate.
## Defaults summary
| Field | Default when the user doesn't say |
|-------|-----------------------------------|
| `model_name` | `user.<default-candidate-slug>-Router` (never reuse a name already used earlier in this conversation) |
| `default_model` | the "small/local/safe" candidate, else first mentioned |
| mode | rules if any concrete signal is named, else LLM-as-router |
| classifier `id` / rule `id` | `clf-N` / `rule-N` |
| `on_error` | `match_false` |
| `default_label` | first label / concept |
| `min_score` | `0.5` |
| `outputs` | omit |
| router prompt | intent only - no reply-format instruction (Step 4) |
| `router.model` (Mode A) | most capable candidate, not the cheapest (Step 4) |
Worked NL → JSON pairs live in `examples.md`; the full schema, parser error
matrix, and model-capability table live in `reference.md`; the offline
validator is `scripts/validate.py` (run it - see Step 8).
© amd · MIT · amd/skills