Ops Review
This is a Hermes-native ops-review workflow skill.
Why This Exists
ops-review exists to keep operations work explicit, evidence-backed, and inside the Hermes/executor boundary instead of relying on ad hoc chat narration.
Do Not Use When
- The review is over sales stages, forecast categories, deal aging, or seller forecast rather than generic operating status; use
sales-pipeline-review.
- The primary output is durable cadence history, minutes, a decision log, or action history; use
operating-rhythm.
Examples
Good example:
- Prompt: ops-review: summarize this week’s support queue, release blockers, owner status, and next operating risks.
- Expected behavior: Create an operations status review with owners, blockers, evidence gaps, and next actions.
- Why: The request is an operating review rather than a one-off plan or coding handoff.
Bad example:
- Prompt: ops-review: 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
ops-review.
- 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.
Workflow Lane
- Current lane: Research and company ops (
product-docs, source-finder, web-research, research, best-practice-research, autoresearch-goal, model-optimization, inference-serving, +19 more) - research, signals, ops, and briefings.
- If intent belongs to another lane, hand back to
oh-my-hermes or name the adjacent workflow.
- Shared product, routing, compatibility, and evidence rules:
omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md.
Use When
Use when Hermes should summarize observed status, risks, blockers, priorities, and follow-up actions for recurring operating work.
Strong routing signals: `ops-review`, `ops review`, `weekly ops review`, `status review`, `operating review`, `release risks`, `risks and blockers`, `priorities`, `weekly status`, `운영 리뷰`, `주간 운영`, `상태 리뷰`, `리스크`, `블로커`, `우선순위`, `릴리즈 리스크`
Catalog Metadata
Category: operations
Phase: status-review
Hermes role: operator
Quality tier: status-gated
Reasoning demand: light
Quality bar:
- Tie every status claim to observed evidence or mark it as unknown.
- Separate risks, blockers, priorities, and follow-up owners.
- Keep code fixes as explicit follow-up handoffs, not implicit ops-review output.
Handoff policy:
Keep operating review and status narration in Hermes; delegate code fixes only from explicit accepted follow-up items.
Required inputs:
- status evidence
- scope
- time window
- known risks
Expected outputs:
- status summary
- risks
- blockers
- priorities
- follow-up actions
Artifact expectations:
- ops review record or status artifact when a wrapper captures it
Artifact contracts:
This label denotes the machine-enforcement level, not a skill quality score and not an observed evidence state.
- contract_id:
ops-review; enforcement_level: guidance_only; consumer_id: none
Safety rules:
- Do not infer status from missing evidence.
- Separate observed facts, risks, blockers, decisions, and follow-up actions.
- Do not report review, CI, release, or merge readiness from an ops summary alone.
Runtime Evidence
Preferred harness for this skill: ops-review.
omh runtime record --skill ops-review --harness ops-review --status started
Record observed delegation results; otherwise return not_available or not_observed.
Prepared OMH routing is not execution, review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence.
- Treat wrapper memory/context summaries as advisory local context, not proof of opaque Hermes memory reads or changes.
Preserve workflow intent and stop conditions; verify before claiming completion.
Use Hermes-native subagent/delegation features when available: native subagents -> Hermes delegation when available, otherwise sequential lanes.
Shared product, compatibility, topology, memory, harness, and execution rules: omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md. Load it when applicable; otherwise name an unavailable capability.
1---
2name: "omh-ops-review"
3description: "[omh] Hermes Ops Review workflow: status, risks, blockers, priorities, and follow-ups. Use when the user says: ops-review, ops review, weekly ops review, status review, operating review, release risks, risks and blockers, priorities."
4metadata:
5 hermes:
6 tags: [workflow, oh-my-hermes, operations]
7 category: operations
8 phase: status-review
9 role: operator
10 quality_tier: status-gated
11---
12
13# Ops Review
14
15This is a Hermes-native `ops-review` workflow skill.
16
17## Why This Exists
18
19`ops-review` exists to keep `operations` work explicit, evidence-backed, and inside the Hermes/executor boundary instead of relying on ad hoc chat narration.
20
21## Do Not Use When
22
23- The review is over sales stages, forecast categories, deal aging, or seller forecast rather than generic operating status; use `sales-pipeline-review`.
24- The primary output is durable cadence history, minutes, a decision log, or action history; use `operating-rhythm`.
25
26## Examples
27
28Good example:
29
30- Prompt: ops-review: summarize this week’s support queue, release blockers, owner status, and next operating risks.
31- Expected behavior: Create an operations status review with owners, blockers, evidence gaps, and next actions.
32- Why: The request is an operating review rather than a one-off plan or coding handoff.
33
34Bad example:
35
36- Prompt: ops-review: treat casual chat or unaccepted work as if this workflow already produced verified results.
37- Expected behavior: Ask a clarification question or route to a narrower workflow instead of forcing `ops-review`.
38- Why: The request lacks the required inputs or would overclaim work that Hermes did not observe.
39
40## Completion Checklist
41
42- Confirm the workflow target, evidence boundary, and stop condition are named.
43- Report which outputs are prepared, observed, blocked, or missing.
44- Name the smallest next verification or handoff instead of claiming completion from narration.
45
46## Recovery Notes
47
48- If required context is missing, ask one blocking question or route back to the narrower workflow.
49- If runtime or wrapper evidence is unavailable, keep the status as not_observed and expose the next observable action.
50
51## Workflow Lane
52
53- Current lane: **Research and company ops** (`product-docs`, `source-finder`, `web-research`, `research`, `best-practice-research`, `autoresearch-goal`, `model-optimization`, `inference-serving`, `+19 more`) - research, signals, ops, and briefings.
54- If intent belongs to another lane, hand back to `oh-my-hermes` or name the adjacent workflow.
55- Shared product, routing, compatibility, and evidence rules: `omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md`.
56
57## Use When
58
59Use when Hermes should summarize observed status, risks, blockers, priorities, and follow-up actions for recurring operating work.
60
61 Strong routing signals: `ops-review`, `ops review`, `weekly ops review`, `status review`, `operating review`, `release risks`, `risks and blockers`, `priorities`, `weekly status`, `운영 리뷰`, `주간 운영`, `상태 리뷰`, `리스크`, `블로커`, `우선순위`, `릴리즈 리스크`
62
63## Catalog Metadata
64
65Category: `operations`
66Phase: `status-review`
67Hermes role: `operator`
68Quality tier: `status-gated`
69Reasoning demand: `light`
70
71Quality bar:
72
73- Tie every status claim to observed evidence or mark it as unknown.
74- Separate risks, blockers, priorities, and follow-up owners.
75- Keep code fixes as explicit follow-up handoffs, not implicit ops-review output.
76
77Handoff policy:
78
79Keep operating review and status narration in Hermes; delegate code fixes only from explicit accepted follow-up items.
80
81Required inputs:
82
83- status evidence
84- scope
85- time window
86- known risks
87
88Expected outputs:
89
90- status summary
91- risks
92- blockers
93- priorities
94- follow-up actions
95
96Artifact expectations:
97
98- ops review record or status artifact when a wrapper captures it
99
100Artifact contracts:
101
102This label denotes the machine-enforcement level, not a skill quality score and not an observed evidence state.
103
104- contract_id: `ops-review`; enforcement_level: `guidance_only`; consumer_id: `none`
105
106Safety rules:
107
108- Do not infer status from missing evidence.
109- Separate observed facts, risks, blockers, decisions, and follow-up actions.
110- Do not report review, CI, release, or merge readiness from an ops summary alone.
111
112## Runtime Evidence
113
114Preferred harness for this skill: `ops-review`.
115
116```sh
117omh runtime record --skill ops-review --harness ops-review --status started
118```
119
120Record observed delegation results; otherwise return `not_available` or `not_observed`.
121Prepared OMH routing is not execution, review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence.
122- Treat wrapper memory/context summaries as advisory local context, not proof of opaque Hermes memory reads or changes.
123Preserve workflow intent and stop conditions; verify before claiming completion.
124
125Use Hermes-native subagent/delegation features when available: native subagents -> Hermes delegation when available, otherwise sequential lanes.
126
127Shared product, compatibility, topology, memory, harness, and execution rules: `omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md`. Load it when applicable; otherwise name an unavailable capability.