/omh-reliability-review

name: "omh-reliability-review"
description: "[omh] Postmortem for an outage or SLO miss: postmortems, SLOs, error budgets, incident follow-ups, and service reliability evidence. Use when the user says: reliability-review, reliability review, incident review, incident postmortem, postmortem, post-mortem, slo review, slo."
metadata:
  hermes:
    tags: [workflow, oh-my-hermes, reliability]
    category: reliability
    phase: incident-and-slo-review
    role: operator
    quality_tier: reliability-gated

Reliability Review

This is a Hermes-native `reliability-review` workflow skill.

Why This Exists

`reliability-review` exists to make SRE-style review strict: service reliability claims must point to metrics or references, and remediation remains separate from the review narrative.

Do Not Use When

• The user only needs a generic status report or leadership deck.
• No service, incident, SLO, metric, or reliability source boundary is available.
• The request is implementation of remediation rather than review of reliability evidence.
• The incident is still open and the user needs severity declared, a commander assigned, a running timeline, and recovery verified; use `live-incident-response` and review it once it is closed.

Examples

Good example:

• Prompt: reliability-review 장애 포스트모템과 SLO 에러버짓 상태를 검토해줘.
• Expected behavior: Prepare a reliability artifact that separates metrics/references, assumptions, missing evidence, and remediation follow-ups.
• Why: The request is reliability evidence review with closure-sensitive claims.

Bad example:

• Prompt: reliability-review make a monthly PPT report for leadership.
• Expected behavior: Use `report-package` unless the report specifically asks for reliability evidence review.
• Why: Report packaging and reliability validation are independent operations surfaces.

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** (`product-docs`, `source-finder`, `web-research`, `research`, `model-optimization`, `inference-serving`, `model-finetuning`, `research-brief`, `+20 more`) - research, signals, ops, and briefings.
• 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 review incident notes, SLOs, error budgets, or service reliability evidence while keeping remediation and closure claims observed.

Strong routing signals: `reliability-review`, `reliability review`, `incident review`, `incident postmortem`, `postmortem`, `post-mortem`, `slo review`, `slo`, `sla`, `error budget`, `service reliability`, `reliability followup`, `remediation tracking`, `sre review`, `장애 리뷰`, `장애 회고`, `포스트모템`, `사후 분석`, `에러버짓`, `에러 버짓`, `서비스 신뢰성`, `신뢰성 검증`, `재발 방지`

Catalog Metadata

Category: `reliability` Phase: `incident-and-slo-review` Hermes role: `operator` Quality tier: `reliability-gated` Reasoning demand: `standard`

Quality bar:

• Name service, incident/time window, SLO/error-budget target, source references, and missing observations.
• Separate supplied metrics, incident notes, assumptions, and remediation follow-ups.
• Keep closure and remediation status unobserved until evidence is supplied.

Handoff policy:

Keep incident/SLO/error-budget review in Hermes; prepare remediation handoffs only after an accepted fix direction exists and record closure only from observed evidence.

Required inputs:

• service or incident scope
• time window
• metric/source references
• known remediation items or gaps

Expected outputs:

• reliability review
• evidence and missing-evidence list
• remediation follow-up boundary

Artifact expectations:

• omh_operation_artifact/v1 reliability-review artifact when a wrapper or CLI records it

Artifact contracts:

This label denotes the machine-enforcement level, not a skill quality score and not an observed evidence state.

• contract_id: `omh_operation_artifact/v1`; enforcement_level: `shared_operation_validated`; consumer_id: `validate_operation_artifact`

Safety rules:

• Do not claim SLO pass, healthy error budget, incident closure, or remediation completion without source, metric, or reference evidence.
• Do not treat a reliability narrative as verification, review, CI, merge, or deploy evidence.
• Route code remediation through a separate accepted plan or executor handoff.

Runtime Evidence

Preferred harness for this skill: `reliability-review`.

omh runtime record --skill reliability-review --harness reliability-review --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.

• Treat wrapper memory/context summaries as advisory local context, not proof of opaque Hermes memory reads or changes.

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 o