# Omh Deploy And Monitor

> [omh] Hermes Deploy-and-Monitor workflow: release checklist, deploy decision, health signals, rollback gate, and post-deploy status. Use when the user says: deploy-and-monitor, deploy and monitor, deploy monitor, deployment monitoring, release monitor, post deploy, post-deploy, rollback.

- Skill: `rlaope/omh-deploy-and-monitor-2` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add rlaope/omh-deploy-and-monitor-2`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/rlaope/omh-deploy-and-monitor-2/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: DevOps & Infra
- Author: rlaope (https://skillmd.com/u/rlaope)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/rlaope/omh-deploy-and-monitor-2

---


# Deploy And Monitor

This is an OMH `deploy-and-monitor` workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).

## Why This Exists

`deploy-and-monitor` exists to keep `monitoring` work explicit, evidence-backed, and inside the Hermes/executor boundary instead of relying on ad hoc chat narration.

## Do Not Use When

- The request is casual chat, a status-only acknowledgement, or another workflow has stronger routing evidence.
- The user needs implementation, review, CI, merge, or external publishing evidence that has not been delegated or observed.

## Examples

Good example:

- Prompt: deploy-and-monitor: prepare the release monitor, rollback signals, health checks, and post-deploy status card.
- Expected behavior: Create release monitoring guidance with deployment, metric, rollback, and observation boundaries.
- Why: The request is about deploy readiness and monitoring rather than code review alone.

Bad example:

- Prompt: deploy-and-monitor: treat casual chat or unaccepted work as if this workflow already produced verified results.
- Expected behavior: Ask a clarification question or route to a narrower workflow instead of forcing `deploy-and-monitor`.
- Why: The request lacks the required inputs or would overclaim work that Hermes did not observe.

## Completion Checklist

- Confirm the workflow target, evidence boundary, and stop condition are named.
- Report which outputs are prepared, observed, blocked, or missing.
- Name the smallest next verification or handoff instead of claiming completion from narration.

## Recovery Notes

- If required context is missing, ask one blocking question or route back to the narrower workflow.
- If runtime or wrapper evidence is unavailable, keep the status as not_observed and expose the next observable action.



## Use When

Use when Hermes should prepare or narrate a release operation with deploy checklist, health signals, rollback criteria, and post-deploy status without pretending to run infrastructure.

    Strong routing signals: `deploy-and-monitor`, `deploy and monitor`, `deploy monitor`, `deployment monitoring`, `release monitor`, `post deploy`, `post-deploy`, `rollback`, `rollback gate`, `health check`, `incident watch`, `release health`, `deploy this service`, `배포 모니터링`, `서비스 배포`, `프로덕션 배포`, `인프라에 배포`, `배포 감시`, `롤백`, `헬스 체크`, `장애 감시`, `릴리즈 모니터링`

## Catalog Metadata

Category: `monitoring`
Phase: `release-ops`
Quality tier: `release-gated`
Reasoning demand: `light`

Quality bar:

- Name release scope, target environment, health signals, rollback criteria, and evidence owner.
- Show pre-deploy, deploy decision, monitor, rollback, and post-deploy as distinct stages.
- Mark health and rollback status unknown until observed evidence arrives.

Required inputs:

- release scope
- environment
- health signals
- rollback owner

Expected outputs:

- pre-deploy checklist
- deploy decision gate
- monitoring watchlist
- rollback criteria
- post-deploy status boundary

Artifact expectations:

- release operation status record when the wrapper captures deploy or monitor observations
- web_qa_comparison/v1 for a canary only with a trusted host_deployment_observation/v1 and a production baseline captured before it

Artifact contracts:

This label denotes the machine-enforcement level, not a skill quality score and not an observed evidence state.

- contract_id: `deploy-and-monitor`; enforcement_level: `guidance_only`; consumer_id: `none`

Safety rules:

- Do not claim deployment, health checks, rollback, or incident response happened from a prepared checklist.
- Keep release readiness, deploy decision, monitor signals, and rollback as separate evidence steps.
- Route code fixes discovered during monitoring as later executor handoffs.
- A canary web-QA comparison never authorizes rollback; a missing deployment observation is BLOCK and a field regression beyond tolerance is REVISE.

## Runtime Evidence

Use the current host's own tools and subagent/task mechanism when available;
otherwise run the same lanes sequentially or name the unavailable capability.
A prepared plan, handoff, checklist, or skill installation is not execution,
review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence. Report actual tool results or
`not_observed` / `not_available`; never invent dispatch or host accounting.
Treat supplied context as advisory, not proof of hidden memory reads or writes.
State scope, constraints, verification, and the stop condition before work.
Supporting paths are relative to this skill directory; sibling skill paths are
relative to its parent. Resolve them from the host-provided skill base directory
(`{baseDir}` on hosts that provide it), never a hardcoded install location.
A named workflow not installed here is unavailable, not permission to emulate
its host-specific capabilities. Verify through the real surface before done.