Omh Ops Review

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, model-optimization, inference-serving, model-finetuning, research-brief, +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.