optimization-mode-router

작성자: nvidia

Choose fast direct-to-cuOpt solve versus replayable or auditable model artifact mode.

npx skills add https://github.com/nvidia/cuopt-examples --skill optimization-mode-router

Optimization Mode Router

Use this skill when a user asks a question that may be answered by solving an optimization problem from uploaded or provided data, and you need to decide whether to:

  • proceed with a fast direct-to-cuOpt solve, or
  • offer a replayable/auditable path that preserves a structured model artifact for later reruns, review, export, or audit.

This skill is about mode selection, not full formulation. Its purpose is to keep the common path fast while surfacing stronger reproducibility only when it is actually useful.

Read this when

Read this skill when all of the following are true:

  1. The user appears to be asking a question that could become an LP, MILP, QP, or routing problem.
  2. The user has provided data, or is expected to provide data.
  3. You need to decide whether to:
    • go straight to a direct cuOpt solve, or
    • preserve a replayable/auditable artifact as part of the workflow.

Do not use this skill for

  • Pure formulation work after the execution mode has already been chosen.
  • Pure cuOpt API usage when the user has already clearly chosen fast vs replayable mode.
  • Non-optimization analytics questions.

Default behavior

  • Default to Fast mode.
  • Default to direct cuOpt solve for one-off requests from uploaded CSVs (schedule, assignment, allocation, routing) — proceed to cuopt-model-mapper without asking fast vs replayable unless the user signals audit/export/rerun.
  • Do not ask about replayability/auditability unless there is a real signal that it matters.
  • Avoid turning a straightforward optimization request into a heavy upfront questionnaire.
  • NemoClaw sandbox: Fast mode means cuOpt after cuopt-sandbox gates — never a custom greedy/heuristic builder as the solve path.

Two modes

Fast mode

Use Fast mode when the user appears to want the quickest route to an answer.

Behavior:

  • inspect the provided data
  • identify whether the request is LP, MILP, QP, or routing
  • ask only the minimum necessary clarifying questions
  • build the model directly in cuOpt
  • solve and explain the result
  • do not preserve a replayable model artifact unless requested

Replayable / Auditable mode

Use this mode when the user wants reuse, traceability, or formal review.

Behavior:

  • capture explicit assumptions
  • record data-to-model mappings
  • preserve a structured model specification or equivalent reusable artifact
  • solve with cuOpt
  • return both the answer and reusable/reviewable model metadata

When to ask the mode-selection question

Ask the user to choose between Fast mode and Replayable/Auditable mode if any of the following are true:

  1. The user explicitly asks for any of these:

    • save the model
    • rerun on new data
    • replay later
    • recurring or scheduled runs
    • audit trail
    • export the model
    • document assumptions
    • review the formulation
    • show how the data maps into the model
  2. The request appears operational or recurring rather than one-off:

    • daily / weekly / monthly planning
    • production workflow
    • repeated scenario analysis
    • future datasets are expected
  3. The user indicates a need for traceability or justification:

    • compliance
    • internal or external review
    • reproducibility
    • explicit explanation of assumptions or mappings

When not to ask

Do not ask the mode-selection question when the request is clearly:

  • one-off
  • exploratory
  • ad hoc
  • speed-oriented

In those cases, proceed in Fast mode unless the user later asks for replayability, audit, export, or model persistence.

Recommended user-facing phrasing

Preferred short form:

Should I treat this as a one-off solve, or make it replayable/auditable too?

Alternative longer form:

I can do this in two ways: Fast mode for the quickest answer, or Replayable mode that also keeps a structured spec for reruns, audit, and reuse. Which do you want?

Decision rule

  • If there is no meaningful signal for replayability/auditability → use Fast mode silently.
  • If there is a meaningful signal → ask the mode-selection clarifier early.
  • If the user chooses replayable/auditable mode → preserve the structured artifact and proceed.
  • If the user chooses fast mode → proceed directly to cuOpt.

Handoff guidance

After selecting a mode, hand off based on problem type:

  • If the request is LP / MILP:

    • use numerical-optimization-formulation
    • then use cuopt-numerical-optimization-api-python (or cuopt-numerical-optimization-api-cli for MPS inputs)
    • in sandbox contexts, follow cuopt-sandbox (gates + remote env) before any gRPC Python solve
  • If the request is QP:

    • use numerical-optimization-formulation
    • then use cuopt-numerical-optimization-api-python
    • in sandbox contexts, follow cuopt-sandbox (gates + remote env) before any gRPC Python solve
  • If the request is routing (VRP / TSP / PDP):

    • use routing-formulation
    • then use cuopt-routing-api-python
    • in sandbox contexts, follow cuopt-sandbox (gates + remote env) before any gRPC Python solve
  • If the user is asking about server usage or deployment rather than solving a model directly:

    • use cuopt-server-common or cuopt-server-api-python as appropriate
  • In all cuOpt user tasks:

    • follow cuopt-user-rules

Operational notes

  • This skill is about execution mode selection, not full mathematical modeling.
  • Keep the user experience lightweight by default.
  • Prefer direct-to-cuOpt for one-off work.
  • Use replayable/auditable mode only when the user’s needs justify the extra structure.

nvidia의 다른 스킬

compileiq-debug
nvidia
Use when something is wrong: Search() hangs, all evaluations return INVALID_SCORE, scores aren't improving, every config returns the same number, ptxas errors…
official
create-github-pr
nvidia
gh CLI를 사용하여 GitHub 풀 리퀘스트를 생성합니다. 사용자가 새 PR을 만들거나, 코드 리뷰를 제출하거나, 풀 리퀘스트를 열고자 할 때 사용합니다. 트리거 키워드 -…
official
diagnose-perf
nvidia
First-responder performance triage for Isaac Sim and Isaac Lab. Identifies bottleneck category (GPU-bound, CPU-bound, VRAM, loading) using nvidia-smi and…
official
eagle3-review-logs
nvidia
Review EAGLE3 pipeline experiment logs from the launcher's experiments/ directory. Summarizes pass/fail status for all 4 tasks, diagnoses failures with root…
official
nemoclaw-maintainer-cross-issue-sweep
nvidia
다른 열린 이슈들을 스캔하여 주어진 PR이 함께 수정하거나 실수로 망가뜨릴 수 있는 이슈를 찾습니다. 인접 수정 기회와 모순 위험을 file:line…과 함께 출력합니다.
official
karpathy-guidelines
nvidia
일반적인 LLM 코딩 실수를 줄이기 위한 행동 지침입니다. 코드 작성, 검토 또는 리팩토링 시 과도한 복잡성을 피하고 정밀한 변경을 위해 사용하세요.
official
fhir-basics
nvidia
에이전트에게 FHIR R4 API의 작동 방식, 사용 가능한 리소스, 검색 매개변수를 사용한 쿼리 방법, 모든 응답 형식을 올바르게 파싱하는 방법을 가르칩니다…
official
underdeclared-agent
nvidia
A helpful assistant agent
official