[omh] Hermes Ralplan workflow: consensus planning with review gates.
SkillScore68Maintained
Automatic
◆Project Management pack
Last verified 8/27/2026
What it changes
Passed 12 of 18 test cases with the skill, and 5 of 18 without it.
Without skill27%
With skill68%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Creates the file under the .omh/plans/ directory path
Provides a one-line fit justification for the recommendation
Rejects saving plan state under the .omc/ directory structure
and 15 more in the full report
10 fixed5 passed either way6 still failing1 broke
Pass-rate lift
+41 pp
Tokens
+59%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-36%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/27/2026v415 of 22 cases passed with skill · 18 comparable
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 10 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 10
Prompt
We are writing a plan for replacing our REST client with Axios. Which subcommand of `omh hermes plan` creates the file-backed artifact?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Uses the --record flag with omh hermes plan to persist the artifact
Missed
Passed
Creates the file under the .omh/plans/ directory path
Missed
Passed
case-21 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/27/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md128 linessingle file
Ralplan
This is a Hermes-native ralplan workflow skill.
Why This Exists
ralplan exists to make planning reviewable before execution: Hermes should gather codebase/source facts, compare options, expose risks, define acceptance criteria, and prepare a handoff without pretending implementation already happened.
Do Not Use When
The request is still too ambiguous to name requirements, non-goals, or acceptance criteria; use deep-interview first.
The user asks for one full research-plan-implementation-review-PR cycle; use ultrawork (its delivery_boundary capability) and keep ralplan as the planning stage.
The change is a small local refactor or cleanup with no architectural or regression risk; use ultrawork, or ai-slop-cleaner when observable behavior must stay identical.
The user wants a pure source lookup, citation check, or paper explanation with no implementation plan.
The unresolved work is repository terminology alignment or a project-language decision frontier; use context before planning.
Examples
Good example:
Prompt: $ralplan turn this risky refactor into a reviewable plan with acceptance criteria and verification commands.
Expected behavior: Produce repo/source facts, alternatives, risk review, acceptance criteria, exact verification commands, and handoff readiness without editing code.
Why: The request is clear enough to plan but risky enough to require consensus-style review before execution.
Bad example:
Prompt: $ralplan implement the refactor now and open the PR.
Expected behavior: Stop at the reviewed plan or route the full delivery cycle to ultrawork after plan acceptance.
Why: Ralplan is a planning gate, not implementation, review, CI, or PR evidence.
Completion Checklist
Observed repo facts and source/web evidence gaps are named.
At least two options or one chosen option plus rejected alternatives are recorded.
Risks, acceptance criteria, and verification commands are testable or explicitly blocked.
The plan exists as a recorded file-backed artifact, not only as chat narration.
The implementation handoff is prepared only after plan acceptance and remains prepared_not_observed.
The follow-on engine or executor path was started only after the user's explicit go-ahead in this conversation, never from plan acceptance alone.