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, +20 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-33description: [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---56# Ops Review78This is a Hermes-native `ops-review` workflow skill.910## Why This Exists1112`ops-review` exists to keep `operations` work explicit, evidence-backed, and inside the Hermes/executor boundary instead of relying on ad hoc chat narration.1314## Do Not Use When1516- 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`.1819## Examples2021Good example:2223- 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.2627Bad example:2829- 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.3233## Completion Checklist3435- 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.3839## Recovery Notes4041- 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.4344## Workflow Lane4546- Current lane: **Research and company ops** (`product-docs`, `source-finder`, `web-research`, `research`, `best-practice-research`, `autoresearch-goal`, `model-optimization`, `inference-serving`, `+20 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`.4950## Use When5152Use when Hermes should summarize observed status, risks, blockers, priorities, and follow-up actions for recurring operating work.5354 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`5556## Catalog Metadata5758Category: `operations`59Phase: `status-review`60Hermes role: `operator`61Quality tier: `status-gated`62Reasoning demand: `light`6364Quality bar:6566- 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.6970Handoff policy:7172Keep operating review and status narration in Hermes; delegate code fixes only from explicit accepted follow-up items.7374Required inputs:7576- status evidence77- scope78- time window79- known risks8081Expected outputs:8283- status summary84- risks85- blockers86- priorities87- follow-up actions8889Artifact expectations:9091- ops review record or status artifact when a wrapper captures it9293Artifact contracts:9495This label denotes the machine-enforcement level, not a skill quality score and not an observed evidence state.9697- contract_id: `ops-review`; enforcement_level: `guidance_only`; consumer_id: `none`9899Safety rules:100101- 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.104105## Runtime Evidence106107Preferred harness for this skill: `ops-review`.108109```sh110omh runtime record --skill ops-review --harness ops-review --status started111```112113Record 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.117118Use Hermes-native subagent/delegation features when available: native subagents -> Hermes delegation when available, otherwise sequential lanes.119120Shared product, compatibility, topology, memory, harness, and execution rules: `omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md`. Load it when applicable; otherwise name an unavailable capability.