# Omh Reliability Review

> [omh] Hermes Reliability Review workflow: postmortems, SLOs, error budgets, incident follow-ups, and service reliability evidence. Use when the user says: reliability-review, reliability review, incident review, incident postmortem, postmortem, post-mortem, slo review, slo.

- Skill: `rlaope/omh-reliability-review-2` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add rlaope/omh-reliability-review-2`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/rlaope/omh-reliability-review-2/raw
- Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS)
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: AI & ML
- Author: rlaope (https://skillmd.com/u/rlaope)
- Updated: 2026-09-21
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/rlaope/omh-reliability-review-2

---


# Reliability Review

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

## Why This Exists

`reliability-review` exists to make SRE-style review strict: service reliability claims must point to metrics or references, and remediation remains separate from the review narrative.

## Do Not Use When

- The user only needs a generic status report or leadership deck.
- No service, incident, SLO, metric, or reliability source boundary is available.
- The request is implementation of remediation rather than review of reliability evidence.

## Examples

Good example:

- Prompt: reliability-review 장애 포스트모템과 SLO 에러버짓 상태를 검토해줘.
- Expected behavior: Prepare a reliability artifact that separates metrics/references, assumptions, missing evidence, and remediation follow-ups.
- Why: The request is reliability evidence review with closure-sensitive claims.

Bad example:

- Prompt: reliability-review make a monthly PPT report for leadership.
- Expected behavior: Use `report-package` unless the report specifically asks for reliability evidence review.
- Why: Report packaging and reliability validation are independent operations surfaces.

## 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 review incident notes, SLOs, error budgets, or service reliability evidence while keeping remediation and closure claims observed.

    Strong routing signals: `reliability-review`, `reliability review`, `incident review`, `incident postmortem`, `postmortem`, `post-mortem`, `slo review`, `slo`, `sla`, `error budget`, `service reliability`, `reliability followup`, `remediation tracking`, `sre review`, `장애 리뷰`, `장애 회고`, `포스트모템`, `사후 분석`, `에러버짓`, `에러 버짓`, `서비스 신뢰성`, `신뢰성 검증`, `재발 방지`

## Catalog Metadata

Category: `reliability`
Phase: `incident-and-slo-review`
Quality tier: `reliability-gated`
Reasoning demand: `standard`

Quality bar:

- Name service, incident/time window, SLO/error-budget target, source references, and missing observations.
- Separate supplied metrics, incident notes, assumptions, and remediation follow-ups.
- Keep closure and remediation status unobserved until evidence is supplied.

Required inputs:

- service or incident scope
- time window
- metric/source references
- known remediation items or gaps

Expected outputs:

- reliability review
- evidence and missing-evidence list
- remediation follow-up boundary

Artifact expectations:

- omh_operation_artifact/v1 reliability-review artifact when a wrapper or CLI records it

Artifact contracts:

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

- contract_id: `omh_operation_artifact/v1`; enforcement_level: `shared_operation_validated`; consumer_id: `validate_operation_artifact`

Safety rules:

- Do not claim SLO pass, healthy error budget, incident closure, or remediation completion without source, metric, or reference evidence.
- Do not treat a reliability narrative as verification, review, CI, merge, or deploy evidence.
- Route code remediation through a separate accepted plan or executor handoff.

## 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.