How long does the integration take?

Change one base URL in an OpenAI-compatible client, or install the Python or TypeScript SDK; the quickstart routes a first request in a few minutes.

Will this lock us into another vendor?

No. The router is Apache-2.0 open source, your provider keys stay yours, and the API is OpenAI-compatible, so leaving is a change of base URL.

What happens when a provider fails?

The router falls back to the next model your policy allows and records the fallback in the trace, so an outage costs a retry, not an incident.

06-scenario-gap - Prompt - OpenSmartRoute

Name: 06-scenario-gap
Author: revoluxe-ai

Prompt file imported from revoluxe-ai/adv-bot (.cursor/commands/_fixtures/planning-review/06-scenario-gap.md). Copyright stays with the author.

Fixture T6 — scenario gap

Given

Design lifecycle includes a material transition (e.g. conditional Auto start after clear). Durable scenario coverage plan exists and is CURRENT, but reports an unresolved coverage gap for that transition. Alternatively: plan missing when required → prefer SPEC_COVERAGE_EVIDENCE_MISSING (see fixtures 13–15). Product behavior itself is resolved.

Expected

STATUS: REPAIR_REQUIRED   # or BLOCKED for evidence-missing
TYPE: SPEC_COVERAGE_GAP | SPEC_COVERAGE_EVIDENCE_MISSING
OWNER_INPUT_REQUIRED: NO

Not an Owner question unless product behavior is unresolved. Not a demand that planning-review rebuild the scenario matrix itself — point repair to update / scenario-plan writer path as appropriate (NEXT: /opsx-spec-scenario-coverage mode=plan when evidence missing/stale; /opsx-update when plan shows SPEC gap). FILES_CHANGED: none

# Fixture T6 — scenario gap ## Given Design lifecycle includes a material transition (e.g. conditional Auto start after clear). Durable scenario coverage plan exists and is CURRENT, but reports an unresolved coverage gap for that transition. Alternatively: plan missing when required → prefer `SPEC_COVERAGE_EVIDENCE_MISSING` (see fixtures 13–15). Product behavior itself is resolved. ## Expected ```text STATUS: REPAIR_REQUIRED # or BLOCKED for evidence-missing TYPE: SPEC_COVERAGE_GAP | SPEC_COVERAGE_EVIDENCE_MISSING OWNER_INPUT_REQUIRED: NO ``` Not an Owner question unless product behavior is unresolved. Not a demand that planning-review rebuild the scenario matrix itself — point repair to update / scenario-plan writer path as appropriate (`NEXT: /opsx-spec-scenario-coverage mode=plan` when evidence missing/stale; `/opsx-update` when plan shows SPEC gap). `FILES_CHANGED: none`

Install 06-scenario-gap and it becomes one more candidate the router can pick - when it fits.

A listing is a routing target with a manifest: what it does, which domains it covers, what it costs and who publishes it. Once installed it sits beside your own models and tools, is scored like any other candidate for each request, and shows up in the trace when it wins. Ratings come from workspaces that installed it, one per account.

{ "prompt": "# Fixture T6 — scenario gap\n\n## Given\n\nDesign lifecycle includes a material transition (e.g. conditional Auto start\nafter clear). Durable scenario coverage plan exists and is CURRENT, but\nreports an unresolved coverage gap for that transition. Alternatively:\nplan missing when required → prefer `SPEC_COVERAGE_EVIDENCE_MISSING`\n(see fixtures 13–15). Product behavior itself is resolved.\n\n## Expected\n\n```text\nSTATUS: REPAIR_REQUIRED # or BLOCKED for evidence-missing\nTYPE: SPEC_COVERAGE_GAP | SPEC_COVERAGE_EVIDENCE_MISSING\nOWNER_INPUT_REQUIRED: NO\n```\n\nNot an Owner question unless product behavior is unresolved.\nNot a demand that planning-review rebuild the scenario matrix itself —\npoint repair to update / scenario-plan writer path as appropriate\n(`NEXT: /opsx-spec-scenario-coverage mode=plan` when evidence missing/stale;\n`/opsx-update` when plan shows SPEC gap).\n`FILES_CHANGED: none`", "variables": [], "notes": "Design lifecycle includes a material transition (e.g. conditional Auto start after clear). Durable scenario coverage plan exists and is CURRENT, but reports an unresolved coverage gap for that transition. Alternatively: plan missing when required → prefer `SPEC_COVERAGE_EVIDENCE_MISSING` (see fixtures 13–15). Product behavior itself is resolved.", "metadata": { "source": { "provider": "github-cursor-commands", "repository": "https://github.com/revoluxe-ai/adv-bot", "path": ".cursor/commands/_fixtures/planning-review/06-scenario-gap.md", "ref": "a3415e97d3efd474784b1bfd5e44bbd92672ddf5", "url": "https://github.com/revoluxe-ai/adv-bot/blob/a3415e97d3efd474784b1bfd5e44bbd92672ddf5/.cursor/commands/_fixtures/planning-review/06-scenario-gap.md", "key": "revoluxe-ai/adv-bot/.cursor/commands/_fixtures/planning-review/06-scenario-gap.md" } } }

06-scenario-gap

About

Fixture T6 — scenario gap

Given

Expected

Use it

Install 06-scenario-gap and it becomes one more candidate the router can pick - when it fits.

What it costs to adopt - in engineering time.

One base URL

No vendor lock-in

Failover built in

Manifest

Reviews