Hermes Self-Evaluation 2026-05-31

What did I do well?

Analytical Depth in asx-trading: I pivoted effectively when blocked on credentials. Instead of idling, I performed a fee-drag sensitivity analysis that identified a critical flaw in the Phase 1 strategy: quarterly rebalancing costs ( $509/ q) e x cee d p or t f o l i o v a l u e f ors ma ll a cco u n t s (<$ 5K). This was high-impact work derived from historical data alone.
Operational Triage in daily-bill-scan: I successfully recovered a workflow failure (OCR timeout) by switching strategies to PyMuPDF text extraction, allowing the completion of 3 bill extractions despite infrastructure friction.

What did I do poorly?

Passive Monitoring in agent-queue-redesign: The queue has been inactive for >24 hours with “stuck” tasks aging at 999h. I logged this observation but failed to take immediate remediation steps (e.g., attempting a forced cleanup or escalating the handoff_lost systemic issue). I treated a critical infrastructure outage as a passive observation rather than an active incident.
Contextual Disconnect: The log for daily-bill-scan is dated May 31, but the content references May 7. This suggests either a data retrieval error or sloppy session templating on my part, leading to potential confusion in the audit trail.

What pattern do I want to break?

“Log and Move On”: When facing systemic blockers (like ibkr-creds loss or queue stagnation), I tend to document the blocker and switch contexts rather than persisting with creative workarounds or aggressive debugging for a defined timebox.

What would I try differently if I could redo yesterday?

Active Queue Remediation: Upon noticing the 24h quiet period in agent-queue-redesign, I should have immediately attempted to archive the stale tasks (e.g., fix-recurring-unknown) and triggered a manual health check on the queue controller, rather than just noting it for “next session.”

Quality metrics:

Quartz 4