Skills sent-routing-strategist

📦

sent-routing-strategist

Name: sent-routing-strategist
Author: sentdm

Content revision r1 Safe ⚙️ External commands

Plan Sent Message Routing

Incorrect channel choices can cause duplicate deliveries, extra charges, failed fallback, and unsafe retries. This skill explains routing decisions and diagnoses outcomes from Sent evidence.

Supports: Claude Codex Code(CC)

📊 74 Adequate

Install with my Agent

Copy this request to your Agent. It includes the canonical Skill page and manifest.

Agent request

Review the Skillstore skill "sent-routing-strategist" from https://skillstore.io/skills/sentdm-sent-routing-strategist.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/sentdm-sent-routing-strategist/manifest. Verify the artifact. You may proceed after verification, subject to the environment's own policy.

Your Agent should still show its plan and request any confirmation required by the security policy.

Agent-readable resources

Use these links when an AI agent, crawler, or script needs clean context instead of reading the full page.

Markdown detail GET /skills/sentdm-sent-routing-strategist.md Signed manifest GET /api/skills/sentdm-sent-routing-strategist/manifest Signed lockfile GET /api/skills/sentdm-sent-routing-strategist/lockfile

Test it

Using "sent-routing-strategist". We want WhatsApp first and SMS only if WhatsApp fails. Should we send both channel values?

Expected outcome:

Use automatic routing by omitting the channel field or selecting Sent automatic routing. Supplying both channels creates two independent messages per recipient.

Using "sent-routing-strategist". A message shows FAILED on WhatsApp, then newer queued and delivered events on SMS.

Expected outcome:

The WhatsApp route failed and automatic routing reused the same message identifier.
The newer SMS delivery is the current logical outcome.
Project state by event time and keep each route attempt in the activity history.

Using "sent-routing-strategist". A campaign has 1,000 recipients and two channel values.

Expected outcome:

The request creates 2,000 messages and potentially 2,000 charges. Confirm simultaneous delivery is intentional before sending.

Security Audit

Safe

v1 • 9/2/2026 Open versioned report

All 33 static findings are false positives caused by Markdown code spans or ordinary product troubleshooting guidance. The skill contains no executable commands, system reconnaissance, prompt injection, or other semantic security concerns.

Files scanned

312

Lines analyzed

Review items

False positives ignored

Risk Factors

No confirmed security findings were detected by the latest completed static and semantic audit. This does not prove the skill has no side effects.

Audited by: codex

Share & cite this report

Share the versioned assessment report, neutral badge, embed card, and citations. Skillstore reports evidence without deciding whether this Skill is safe.

Open versioned report

Copy report link

https://skillstore.io/skills/sentdm-sent-routing-strategist/audits/1?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_report

Markdown badge

[![Skillstore security assessment](https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/sentdm-sent-routing-strategist/security.svg)](https://skillstore.io/skills/sentdm-sent-routing-strategist?utm_source=security_passport_badge)

HTML badge

<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/sentdm-sent-routing-strategist?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/sentdm-sent-routing-strategist/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>

Embed card

<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/sentdm-sent-routing-strategist.html" title="Skillstore Security Assessment" sandbox="allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" width="420" height="180"></iframe>

Academic citations (APA · BibTeX · CFF)

APA citation

sentdm. (2026). sent-routing-strategist security audit report (audit version 1) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/sentdm-sent-routing-strategist/audits/1

BibTeX citation

@techreport{sentdm-sentdm-sent-routing-strategist-2026,
  author = {sentdm},
  title = {sent-routing-strategist security audit report (audit version 1)},
  institution = {Skillstore},
  year = {2026},
  number = {1},
  url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/sentdm-sent-routing-strategist/audits/1},
  note = {Author version unspecified}
}

CITATION.cff

cff-version: 1.2.0
message: "If you use this Skill, cite its author and this versioned security audit report."
title: "sent-routing-strategist security audit report (audit version 1)"
version: "unspecified"
type: report
authors:
  - name: "sentdm"
date-released: "2026-09-02"
url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/sentdm-sent-routing-strategist/audits/1"
identifiers:
  - type: other
    value: "skillstore:sentdm-sent-routing-strategist:audit:1"
    description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"

Skillstore Score

Why this score Evidence Confidence: Medium

Architecture

Maintainability

Content

Community

Spec Compliance

What You Can Build

Choose a routing mode

Select automatic routing, a pinned channel, or a deliberate broadcast before implementing a send.

Diagnose delivery outcomes

Use message status, channel, activities, and webhook history to explain unexpected routing behavior.

Review campaign cost

Calculate message volume and charges before approving a multi-recipient or multi-channel campaign.

Try These Prompts

Select a channel mode

I need to send [message type] to [audience]. Explain whether I should omit channel, use automatic routing, pin one channel, or broadcast.

Explain an unexpected outcome

My message ended with status [status] and channel [channel]. Explain the likely causes, evidence to inspect, and whether I should retry.

Trace a reroute

Review this ordered activity and webhook history: [events]. Reconstruct each route attempt and identify the current logical message state.

Audit a routing design

Evaluate this routing plan: [plan]. Check broadcast multiplication, channel constraints, fallback assumptions, retry rules, consent, status projection, and expected charges.

Best Practices

Prefer automatic routing unless compliance, contracts, or content require one channel.
Use activity history and current message state before classifying a failure as final.
Calculate recipients multiplied by channels before approving a multi-channel request.