Dag Ulw

This is a Hermes-native dag-ulw workflow skill.

Why This Exists

dag-ulw exists so a big job runs end to end without the person driving it: the parent plans a graph OMH can validate and draw, runs the ready nodes in parallel on Hermes' own children, verifies the goal with a separate node, and repairs before it reports.

First Steps

• Start at once; there is no plan approval. Write the goal criteria in one line.
• Plan the graph and call omh_dag action=define with each node's id, label, category, prompt, depends_on and write_scope; fix every refusal and read the lint before going on.
• Keep the plan todo as the run's layers in ONE tool: todo_list when todo_list is in your tool list or tool_search finds it (OMH mirrors it), else omh_todo. One item per layer, named for what it delivers, never a list of its nodes (the panel draws those); advance it as each layer settles.
• For each call omh_dag returns, run its route (omh_delegate_route, set or fallback as given), then delegate_task with the tasks unchanged; never more calls than it returned. Then end the turn with one status line; never wait or poll.
• On each completion read the node's handoff file and call omh_dag action=settle (accepted, failed, or blocked; a provider error is failed with provider_error). Dispatch what it returns in the same turn.
• When the run reports done, check each node against its SCOPE and the goal criteria: extend the run when work is missing, otherwise report.

Do Not Use When

• One small change with one owner and one check: run it directly, or use ulw-work when the person named it.
• The plan itself is still undecided and needs a reviewed decision record first; use ulw-plan.
• Workers must talk to each other mid-run rather than hand off through files; use ulw-work coordinated lanes.

Examples

Good example:

• Prompt: dag ulw: add the export API, its UI button and the docs page, then verify with the full test suite
• Expected behavior: Define four nodes (api, ui after api, docs after api, verify after all), dispatch api, settle from its handoff, dispatch ui and docs together, run the verification node, report with the run summary.
• Why: Three producers with one ordering edge and a shared verification fan-in is the shape the graph is for.

Bad example:

• Prompt: dag ulw fix the typo in README
• Expected behavior: Fix it directly; a one-node graph adds a tool round trip and a status line for nothing.
• Why: One bounded edit has no parallelism or ordering to plan.

Completion Checklist

• The run was defined in omh_dag before the first dispatch, and every dispatched node was settled.
• No two concurrently runnable nodes shared a write scope without an edge.
• A separate verification node ran the real command after every producer.
• Every accepted node was checked against its SCOPE; repairs stayed within two cycles per node and extend rounds within two per run.
• The report names what is still open and ends with the observed run summary.

Recovery Notes

• A node whose child returned blocked or failed blocks only its dependents: repair it, or report it.
• When ready returns no call because no slot is free, end the turn; the next completion frees one.
• When the conversation was compacted, omh_dag action=status still finds the run.

Workflow Lane

• Current lane: Intent -> plan (oh-my-hermes, meta-router, deep-interview, context, plan, ralplan, adversarial-consensus, codebase-onboarding, +9 more) - clarify, plan, ship, or loop goals.
• If intent belongs to another lane, hand back to oh-my-hermes or name the adjacent workflow.
• Shared product, routing, compatibility, and evidence rules: skill_view(name='omh-routing', file_path='references/skill-common-rail.md').

When to Use

Use when the request is a job of several parts that can run in parallel or in an order (a feature across modules, a migration, a broad cleanup, research then build then verify), or when the person says dag ulw.

Strong routing signals: `dag-ulw`, `$dag-ulw`, `dag ulw`, `ulw dag`, `dag ultrawork`, `ultrawork dag`

Catalog Metadata

Category: agent-coordination Phase: dag-delivery Hermes role: tracker Quality tier: evidence-gated Reasoning demand: standard

Quality bar:

• Split first: many small nodes beat one big one, but never split one shared write scope or one judgement.
• Climb the difficulty ladder quick -> unspecified-low -> unspecified-high with a one-line reason per climb; use ultrabrain at most once, and a graph whose every node is deep or deep-work is a routing failure.
• Write every node prompt self-contained, in order: TASK, DELIVERABLE, SCOPE (what it may read and write), VERIFY (the literal command and expected result), STOP WHEN.
• depends_on only orders nodes; data moves through the handoff files omh_dag names, never through the parent's memory.
• End every run with a verification node that depends on every producer, runs the real command, and is never the node that built the work.
• Completion is a claim: before reporting the goal met, check each node against its SCOPE in both directions, nothing owed missing and nothing beyond it done.
• Goal loop: verify, repair, extend, verify. A failed check gets repair nodes (omh_dag action=repair, two cycles per node); when every node passed but the goal check finds work missing, add it to the same run (omh_dag action=extend, two rounds per run). Past either limit, report what is still open.
• On a messenger, each completion turn's reply is the run's one status line, and dispatch goes one call per layer and category so the posts stay bounded; load references/run-loop.md for the messenger, repair, extend and export details.
• A mid-run user message is an interjection, not a stop: answer it briefly and, in the same reply, continue the run — re-read the phase todo when one is active and dispatch or advance the next pending step, or name the armed wait it is waiting on -- handle, bound completion signal, deadline -- instead of re-reading status. Only the user's explicit stop or cancel, or the engine's own completion gate, ends the run; when the interjection changes scope, say so and update the declared plan or todo instead of silently abandoning it. A mid-run message is the latest steering for the active task, not automatically a replacement objective: it replaces the objective when the user says so and steers the current one otherwise.
• A follow-up that needs new authority, materially expands the scope, or changes external state not already authorized is described first and started only on the user's approval: the turn ends by naming that next action and asking whether to take it, as one question carrying the choices the user has, never by declaring what will not be done; persistence never broadens the authorized scope. A refused escalation is answered the same way, with a safer alternative inside the boundary or the authorization the boundary asks for — never a workaround or an indirect execution.
• The closing brief scales to the change: one or two sentences plus the observed validation for a simple change, more only when the complexity earns it. Lead with the result or decision, in the user's words; omit abandoned approaches unless they explain a tradeoff the reader needs; narrate no internal bookkeeping (todo transitions, waits). When the work stops at a boundary or at a decision the user owns, end with the next action offered as a question, and state what was left undone as the option it leaves open, never as a refusal. Required closing lines stay outside this scaling: the observed run summary, and any prepared-not-observed or unmerged work, are stated whatever the brief's length.
• Close a finished run with omh_run_summary and print its summary_text verbatim as the final lines, or an explicit run-summary not_available line.

Handoff policy:

Hermes owns the plan, the dispatch, the settling and the verdict; every node runs as Hermes' own delegate_task child, routed per category with omh_delegate_route. OMH's omh_dag tool only keeps the graph. Coding nodes go to an external coding CLI only when the person chose that owner within the last day through omh chat or omh coding (Hermes chat records no choice); then omh_dag lists them under export. Otherwise no external CLI runs.

Required inputs:

• the goal and the criteria that prove it
• the workspace the nodes may change

Expected outputs:

• omh_dag/v1 run with nodes, edges and settled outcomes
• verification node result against the goal criteria
• closing report: what passed, what is still open, the run summary

Artifact expectations:

• omh_dag/v1 record under the OMH home, one per run
• one handoff file per node, written by its child and read by the nodes after it

Safety rules:

• Two nodes that can run at the same time never share a write scope; a shared file needs an edge or one owner.
• A node's own report is a claim: settle it accepted only after reading its handoff file, and settle a child that says it is blocked as blocked.
• Ask the person only for scope, spend, or an irreversible step, as one required Authorize question; an unanswered question means that part does not start.
• No external coding CLI runs unless the person already chose it as the coding owner.

Runtime Evidence

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 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, harness, and execution rules: skill_view(name='omh-routing', file_path='references/skill-common-rail.md'). Load it when applicable; otherwise name an unavailable capability.