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-review3description: [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.4---5
6# Ops Review
7
8This is a Hermes-native `ops-review` workflow skill.
9
10## Why This Exists
11
12`ops-review` exists to keep `operations` work explicit, evidence-backed, and inside the Hermes/executor boundary instead of relying on ad hoc chat narration.
13
14## Do Not Use When
15
16- The review is over sales stages, forecast categories, deal aging, or seller forecast rather than generic operating status; use `sales-pipeline-review`.
17- The primary output is durable cadence history, minutes, a decision log, or action history; use `operating-rhythm`.
18
19## Examples
20
21Good example:
22
23- Prompt: ops-review: summarize this week’s support queue, release blockers, owner status, and next operating risks.
24- Expected behavior: Create an operations status review with owners, blockers, evidence gaps, and next actions.
25- Why: The request is an operating review rather than a one-off plan or coding handoff.
26
27Bad example:
28
29- Prompt: ops-review: treat casual chat or unaccepted work as if this workflow already produced verified results.
30- Expected behavior: Ask a clarification question or route to a narrower workflow instead of forcing `ops-review`.
31- Why: The request lacks the required inputs or would overclaim work that Hermes did not observe.
32
33## Completion Checklist
34
35- Confirm the workflow target, evidence boundary, and stop condition are named.
36- Report which outputs are prepared, observed, blocked, or missing.
37- Name the smallest next verification or handoff instead of claiming completion from narration.
38
39## Recovery Notes
40
41- If required context is missing, ask one blocking question or route back to the narrower workflow.
42- If runtime or wrapper evidence is unavailable, keep the status as not_observed and expose the next observable action.
43
44## Workflow Lane
45
46- 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.
47- If intent belongs to another lane, hand back to `oh-my-hermes` or name the adjacent workflow.
48- Shared product, routing, compatibility, and evidence rules: `omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md`.
49
50## Use When
51
52Use when Hermes should summarize observed status, risks, blockers, priorities, and follow-up actions for recurring operating work.
53
54 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`
55
56## Catalog Metadata
57
58Category: `operations`
59Phase: `status-review`
60Hermes role: `operator`
61Quality tier: `status-gated`
62Reasoning demand: `light`
63
64Quality bar:
65
66- Tie every status claim to observed evidence or mark it as unknown.
67- Separate risks, blockers, priorities, and follow-up owners.
68- Keep code fixes as explicit follow-up handoffs, not implicit ops-review output.
69
70Handoff policy:
71
72Keep operating review and status narration in Hermes; delegate code fixes only from explicit accepted follow-up items.
73
74Required inputs:
75
76- status evidence
77- scope
78- time window
79- known risks
80
81Expected outputs:
82
83- status summary
84- risks
85- blockers
86- priorities
87- follow-up actions
88
89Artifact expectations:
90
91- ops review record or status artifact when a wrapper captures it
92
93Artifact contracts:
94
95This label denotes the machine-enforcement level, not a skill quality score and not an observed evidence state.
96
97- contract_id: `ops-review`; enforcement_level: `guidance_only`; consumer_id: `none`
98
99Safety rules:
100
101- Do not infer status from missing evidence.
102- Separate observed facts, risks, blockers, decisions, and follow-up actions.
103- Do not report review, CI, release, or merge readiness from an ops summary alone.
104
105## Runtime Evidence
106
107Preferred harness for this skill: `ops-review`.
108
109```sh
110omh runtime record --skill ops-review --harness ops-review --status started
111```
112
113Record observed delegation results; otherwise return `not_available` or `not_observed`.
114Prepared OMH routing is not execution, review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence.
115- Treat wrapper memory/context summaries as advisory local context, not proof of opaque Hermes memory reads or changes.
116Preserve workflow intent and stop conditions; verify before claiming completion.
117
118Use Hermes-native subagent/delegation features when available: native subagents -> Hermes delegation when available, otherwise sequential lanes.
119
120Shared product, compatibility, topology, memory, harness, and execution rules: `omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md`. Load it when applicable; otherwise name an unavailable capability.