Ops Review

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

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.

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 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.

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

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. Record actual tool results, or not_observed / not_available, in the record; 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. Reply in the user's own words and the host's own voice: OMH's record terms (surface, lane, wrapper, handoff, evidence boundary, not_observed) stay in records and tool calls, never in the sentence the user reads unless they ask about one; and when a stop condition or a decision the user owns ends the turn, offer the next action as a question rather than declaring what will not be done. 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.