Omh Reliability Review

---
name: "omh-reliability-review"
description: "[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."
metadata:
  hermes:
    tags: [workflow, oh-my-hermes, reliability]
    category: reliability
    phase: incident-and-slo-review
    role: operator
    quality_tier: reliability-gated
---

# Reliability Review

This is a Hermes-native `reliability-review` workflow skill.

## 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.

## 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 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`
Hermes role: `operator`
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.

Handoff policy:

Keep incident/SLO/error-budget review in Hermes; prepare remediation handoffs only after an accepted fix direction exists and record closure only from observed evidence.

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

Preferred harness for this skill: `reliability-review`.

```sh
omh runtime record --skill reliability-review --harness reliability-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.