/omh-cto-loop

name: "omh-cto-loop"
description: "[omh] Engineering leadership over roadmap and risk: roadmap, PM, technical tradeoffs, risk, delivery, release, and follow-up operating cadence. Use when the user says: cto-loop, cto loop, cto, cto pm, pm dev qa security ops, roadmap technical tradeoffs, technical tradeoff, delivery risk."
metadata:
  hermes:
    tags: [workflow, oh-my-hermes, leadership]
    category: leadership
    phase: operating-loop
    role: operator
    quality_tier: decision-gated

Cto Loop

This is a Hermes-native `cto-loop` workflow skill.

Why This Exists

`cto-loop` exists to keep `leadership` work explicit, evidence-backed, and inside the Hermes/executor boundary instead of relying on ad hoc chat narration.

Do Not Use When

• The request is a settings-only change, one bounded edit that is explicitly low-risk and has a direct owner and verification path, or a direct answer/diagnosis; handle it directly or use `strategy-brief` for a decision brief instead of starting a leadership operating loop.

Examples

Good example:

• Prompt: cto-loop: run the PM, dev, QA, security, and ops loop for this risky billing launch.
• Expected behavior: Prepare the CTO operating model with role responsibilities, gates, blockers, and status boundaries.
• Why: The request needs a leadership operating loop, not just a generic plan.

Bad example:

• Prompt: cto-loop: 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 `cto-loop`.
• 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: **Coding handoff** (`idea-to-deploy`, `llm-app-dev`, `cto-loop`, `deploy-and-monitor`, `code-review`, `build-failure-triage`, `verification-gate`, `security-safety-review`, `+28 more`) - coding owners, handoffs, review, CI, and merge evidence.
• 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 run a leadership-style operating loop that turns signals into roadmap decisions, technical tradeoffs, delivery risk, release readiness, and explicit follow-up handoffs.

Strong routing signals: `cto-loop`, `cto loop`, `cto`, `cto pm`, `pm dev qa security ops`, `roadmap technical tradeoffs`, `technical tradeoff`, `delivery risk`, `release readiness`, `technical leadership loop`, `leadership operating loop`, `engineering leadership`, `CTO 구조`, `PM 구조`, `로드맵`, `아키텍처 트레이드오프`, `기술 리더십`, `출시 준비`

Catalog Metadata

Category: `leadership` Phase: `operating-loop` Hermes role: `operator` Quality tier: `decision-gated` Reasoning demand: `heavy`

Quality bar:

• Separate product priority, architecture tradeoff, delivery risk, release risk, and follow-up owner.
• Tie recommendations to observed signals or mark assumptions.
• Record accepted decisions separately from draft recommendations.
• Prepare executor handoffs only for accepted implementation follow-ups.

Handoff policy:

Keep CTO/PM-style synthesis, tradeoffs, risk ranking, decision notes, and status in Hermes; convert accepted implementation follow-ups into executor-neutral handoffs.

Required inputs:

• operating signals
• roadmap or release scope
• known risks
• decision owner

Expected outputs:

• priority frame
• architecture tradeoffs
• delivery risks
• decision note
• follow-up handoff candidates

Artifact expectations:

• leadership loop record or status summary when a wrapper captures decisions and follow-ups

Safety rules:

• Do not treat a CTO loop recommendation as an accepted roadmap decision.
• Do not imply CTO, PM, QA, Security, or Ops runtime agents exist without observed wrapper evidence.
• Separate strategy decisions from implementation handoffs and release evidence.

Runtime Evidence

Preferred harness for this skill: `app-delivery-loop`.

omh runtime record --skill cto-loop --harness app-delivery-loop --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.

• When wrapper metadata includes `memory_review_card/v1` or `handoff_context_pack/v1`, treat it as reviewed OMH-local or wrapper-supplied context only. Use conflict-free context summaries to shape plans and handoffs, but do not claim Hermes internal memory was read or changed.

Preserve workflow intent and stop conditions; verify before claiming completion. Reply in the user's own words and the host's own voice: its SOUL.md persona owns reply language, tone, speech level, and sentence endings, progress updates included (where it sets no language, use the one the user wrote in), and OMH shapes structure and content only; 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.

Use Hermes-native subagent/delegation features when available: native subagents -> Hermes delegation when available, otherwise sequential lanes.

Shared product, compatibility, topology, memory, h