[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.
Scanned 9/2/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add rlaope/oh-my-hermes --skill omh-ops-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Omh Ops Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/rlaope-omh-ops-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: "omh-ops-review"
description: "[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."
metadata:
hermes:
tags: [workflow, oh-my-hermes, operations]
category: operations
phase: status-review
role: operator
quality_tier: status-gated
---
# 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 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** (`source-finder`, `web-research`, `research`, `best-practice-research`, `autoresearch-goal`, `model-optimization`, `inference-serving`, `research-brief`, `+16 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`.
```sh
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.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!