René's URL Explorer Experiment

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DiscussionForumPosting","headline":"Feature Request: More Flexible Router Block (Multi-Route Selection \u0026 Custom System Prompt)","articleBody":"## Problem\n\nThe current Router block is useful for AI-powered routing, but it appears to be limited to selecting a single route and relies on a hidden internal system prompt. This makes the block less flexible for advanced workflows and prevents users from adapting the routing behavior to different use cases.\n\nIn many real-world scenarios, a single input may legitimately belong to multiple categories. For example:\n\n* A support ticket may involve both Billing and Technical issues.\n* User feedback may contain both a Bug Report and Product Feedback.\n* A lead may qualify for multiple downstream workflows.\n\nCurrently, the Router seems designed around single-route classification, which limits these use cases.\n\n## Proposed Improvements\n\n### 1. Route Selection Mode\n\nAdd a configurable routing mode with options such as:\n\n**Single Route (Current Behavior)**\n\n* Select exactly one best-matching route.\n* Backward compatible with existing workflows.\n\n**Multiple Routes**\n\n* Allow the model to select multiple matching routes.\n* Output an array of selected routes instead of a single value.\n* Trigger multiple output ports simultaneously.\n\nExample:\n\nInput:\n\"Billing charges are incorrect and the API is returning errors.\"\n\nSelected Routes:\n\n* Billing\n* Technical\n\n### 2. Custom System Prompt\n\nExpose the Router's system prompt as an optional advanced setting.\n\nExample use cases:\n\n* Adjust routing strictness.\n* Allow multi-label classification.\n* Prioritize specific business rules.\n* Customize fallback behavior.\n* Define confidence thresholds.\n* Improve domain-specific routing.\n\nExample:\n\n\"You may select multiple routes if the input clearly belongs to more than one category.\"\n\nor\n\n\"Prefer the most specific route instead of the most general route.\"\n\nThis would significantly increase flexibility without affecting users who prefer the default behavior.\n\n### 3. Configurable No-Match Behavior\n\nAllow users to choose between:\n\n* Route to Error Path\n* Force Best Match\n* Return Multiple Candidates\n* Use Custom Fallback Route\n\n### 4. Confidence Score Output\n\nProvide an optional confidence score for each routing decision.\n\nExample outputs:\n\n* selectedRoute\n* selectedRoutes\n* confidence\n* reasoning\n\nThis would help with debugging and workflow monitoring.\n\n## Benefits\n\n* Supports both single-label and multi-label classification.\n* Works better for complex enterprise workflows.\n* Gives users more control over routing behavior.\n* Reduces the need for custom LLM blocks before the Router.\n* Makes the Router adaptable to a wider range of use cases.\n\n## Summary\n\nThe Router block would become significantly more powerful by supporting:\n\n1. Single-route and multi-route modes.\n2. User-configurable system prompts.\n3. Configurable no-match behavior.\n4. Confidence score outputs.\n\nThese changes would preserve backward compatibility while providing much greater flexibility for advanced workflow design.","author":{"url":"https://github.com/chalitbkb","@type":"Person","name":"chalitbkb"},"datePublished":"2026-06-06T09:59:38.000Z","interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":"https://schema.org/CommentAction","userInteractionCount":0},"url":"https://github.com/4897/sim/issues/4897"}