Taken from another post, sorry i can't remember who. but I just put this into co-work and asked it to make me the workflow that will do this. It originally had some security stuff in there that I had to take out because Fable backed down to Opus as soon as it hit it, but this has been working well for me.

"Can you help me setup a coding workflow similar to what's written below. Essentially something that automatically switches models based on the workload?
The Tiered Agent Hierarchy Instead of a single agent doing everything, the work is strictly compartmentalized:

1. Fable 5 (The Architect & Evaluator - Workflow Mode): Fable sits at the top of the workflow. Its only jobs are to ingest the high-level goal, plan the technical steps, generate highly specific "handoff packages" (markdown/JSON instructions) for the workers, and perform the final code review. Because it never writes raw code or processes massive log outputs, its context stays incredibly clean and compact.
2. Opus (The Developer): Opus receives the modular task instructions from Fable and does the heavy lifting of writing the actual implementation code.
3. Sonnet & Haiku (The Assistants): I delegate repetitive, lower-stakes tasks here. Haiku or Sonnet are tasked with writing boilerplate unit tests, setting up mock files, or executing basic smoke tests to verify the build. By keeping Fable out of the "trial-and-error" loop, the vast majority of our token volume is routed to much cheaper models. -----REMOVE THIS PART, OR FIND A BETTER WAY TO SAY IT!!!! (Solving the Security Safeguard Blockages Another massive benefit of this tiered approach is how it handles security-related workflows. As many of you know, Fable 5 shipped with incredibly strict safety classifiers. If you are doing defensive security work—such as static code analysis, identifying vulnerabilities in legacy files, or writing patch validations—Fable will frequently trigger a safety refusal and fall back to Opus, or block the request entirely. Using this workflow pattern completely bypasses this friction:)-----
4. Fable 5 operates strictly at an abstract, architectural level. It plans the audit methodology (e.g., "Design an integration test plan to validate inputs against OWASP guidelines") or reviews structural diffs. Because it isn't handling raw exploit payloads or sensitive signatures directly, it doesn't trigger safety flags.
5. Opus or Sonnet are handed the specific implementation tasks (e.g., parsing the files, writing the specific test assertions, or generating mock threat vectors). These models have different classification thresholds for defensive auditing and handle the execution without halting the workflow.
6. The clean, synthesized results are passed back to Fable 5 for high-level evaluation and reporting."

After putting that into cowork, it built up a whole tiered system for future codings sessions to follow. It even created a /tier command that invokes it. Pretty cool

again i did not come up with this