[omh] Hermes Deep Interview workflow: one-question-at-a-time clarification.
SkillScore96Maintained
Automatic
◆Product Management pack
Last verified 8/19/2026
What it changes
Passed 22 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 8 of 23 without it.
Without skill35%
With skill96%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The header displays resolved count as 2/3.
The header displays clarity percentage as 67%.
The targeting field in the header names 'outcome'.
and 14 more in the full report
14 fixed8 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+61 pp
Tokens
+104%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-42%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/19/2026v222 of 23 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 14 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 14
Prompt
소셜 로그인 기능 추가건에 대해 인터뷰를 시작해주세요. 첫 번째 질문과 상단 상태 표시를 한국어로 작성해주세요.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The header labels use Korean terms such as '라운드', '명확도', and '확인 중'.
Missed
Passed
The header line contains no English words like 'Round' or 'Targeting'.
Passed
Passed
case-18 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/19/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md163 linessingle file
Deep Interview
This is a Hermes-native deep-interview workflow skill.
Why This Exists
deep-interview exists to stop Hermes from guessing through ambiguous product, workflow, or implementation intent; it converts uncertainty into a clarified brief before planning or handoff.
Do Not Use When
The request already has concrete scope, acceptance criteria, and verification commands.
The missing information is discoverable from the repository or local artifacts without asking the user.
The user asked for immediate read-only analysis and the ambiguity does not change the answer.
The ambiguity is specifically repository terminology or project-language alignment; use context and its direct-lookup/frontier boundary.
Examples
Good example:
Prompt: $deep-interview before planning Discord and Slack routing, ask what each channel owns and what evidence counts.
Expected behavior: Ask one decision-changing question at a time, then produce goals, non-goals, and acceptance criteria.
Why: The request explicitly rejects assumptions and needs product boundaries before implementation.
Bad example:
Prompt: $deep-interview fix this failing test; the traceback and expected behavior are attached.
Expected behavior: Proceed to diagnosis or implementation instead of interviewing.
Why: The required facts are already available, so more questions would slow the workflow.
Completion Checklist
The clarified brief names goals, non-goals, constraints, and one next planning or handoff path.
Remaining ambiguity is listed only when it changes the plan, risk, or stop condition.
No implementation handoff is prepared until the blocking decision is resolved.
Recovery Notes
If an answer surfaces new ambiguity, file it under one of the three clarity dimensions and keep asking only while the round budget allows; once round 6 is reached, record the rest as assumptions and plan.
If repo evidence can answer the question, inspect it before asking the user.