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 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, research, best-practice-research, autoresearch-goal, research-brief, strategy-brief, feedback-triage, research-department, +13 more) - research, signals, ops, and briefings.