oh-my-hermes is an operating layer for Hermes Agent that organizes requests into workflows for planning, research, creation, coding handoffs, operations, and project memory. Hermes users run these workflows through the desktop app, CLI, or messenger app, while the catalogue add-ons extend its native capabilities.
Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add rlaope/oh-my-hermes --skill omh-reliability-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rlaope/oh-my-hermesWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/rlaope/oh-my-hermes/omh-reliability-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rlaope/oh-my-hermes/omh-reliability-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rlaope/oh-my-hermes/omh-reliability-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rlaope/oh-my-hermes/omh-reliability-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rlaope/oh-my-hermes/omh-reliability-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00068 | $0.01205 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00602 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00241 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00120 |
Grade A, and why
omh-reliability-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 4d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
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.
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-packageunless 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,best-practice-research,autoresearch-goal,model-optimization,inference-serving,+19 more) - research, signals, ops, and briefings. - If intent belongs to another lane, hand back to
oh-my-hermesor name the adjacent workflow. - Shared product, routing, compatibility, and evidence rules:
omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 4d ago Changed b0328fe36c96
- 7d ago Changed cc9c941429dd
- 9d ago First seen · 127 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A ff9a5c7f9c07
omh-reliability-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository rlaope/oh-my-hermes (1,677 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 1,205 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
story-long-analyze
A structured process for deeply analysing a long online novel, starting with its opening three chapters and continuing chapter by chapter.
story-review
A review process for finding problems in a novel’s structure, characters, wording, and world rules. It can use several reviewers or one reviewer when others are unavailable.
moxiangtongxiu-perspective
A Chinese-language creative-writing guide built around character-led stories, interwoven plotlines, memorable dialogue, ensemble casts, and emotional contrasts. It is presented as a perspective associated with the author Mo Xiang Tong Xiu.
tiancantudou-perspective
A creative-writing guide based on the storytelling patterns associated with Chinese web novelist Tiancan Tudou. It focuses on stories where an underestimated character grows stronger through challenges and moves into new settings.
tianya-gods-team
A decision-making system in which 20 fictional specialist viewpoints analyze one question in parallel before a coordinating AI combines them. It covers areas such as history, economics, relationships, technology, mysteries, and culture.
lijigang-skill
A Chinese-language approach to writing precise, highly structured prompts, sometimes using Lisp-like notation. It combines concise wording, philosophical questioning, and a process for defining roles, conditions, output formats, and revisions.