Agents In Use
What’s new todayLast update
— use cases added today

Hermes learns travel preferences from a debrief

Christopher Mburu reports a seeded Hermes TravelOps demo that researched a Dubai trip, saved a layover complaint to memory and applied it to the next plan.

Published dev.toAgent: Hermes Agent
FROM THE SOURCE

Original prompt

Shared by the source author. See source notes for context.

Plan a trip for Sarah to Dubai next week

Evidence at a glance

Sourced account
Source author
Christopher Mburu
Original account
Read the source ↗
Published
31 May 2026
Source link checked
15 Oct 2026
Reported result
Christopher Mburu reports a seeded Hermes TravelOps demo that researched a Dubai trip, saved a layover complaint to memory and applied it to the next plan.
Human involvement
The builder seeds the profiles, supplies the debrief and inspects the rewritten memory. Bookings remain pending approval; no real travel is verified.

A linked account supports attribution. It does not mean we independently reproduced its result.

Report an issue with this caseOpen correction email

Opens your email app with the case link included. Nothing is sent automatically.

How the agent did it

  1. Hermes recalls seeded traveler preferences and searches for a Dubai itinerary.
  2. It stops the proposed plan at pending approval and reads the stored visa information.
  3. A supplied layover complaint triggers memory lookups, retries and a new dated preference.

Christopher Mburu built TravelOps with Hermes Agent's own skills, search, scheduling and persistent memory. The demonstrated traveler profiles and trip dates were seeded fixtures. The planning and memory updates were real agent actions, according to his account, rather than evidence that a traveler took the suggested flights.

In the first request, Hermes loaded the planning skill, made three web searches and recommended a Dubai itinerary using stored preferences. It included an Emirates flight, a window seat, vegetarian food and a hotel choice, then stopped at pending approval. A separate visa question read the fixture's stored expiry date.

Mburu then supplied a post-trip complaint about a six-hour layover. The agent repeatedly queried memory, including failed lookups, before writing a new preference and a dated lesson. A subsequent request applied the change without being reminded of it and prioritized a hotel with a previously stored Wi-Fi rating.

There is a useful inconsistency to preserve. The first plan was already described as nonstop, while the debrief complained about a layover. The memory file said a maximum of three hours and the later recommendation said nonstop only. This demonstrates a preference-update loop, with fixture contradictions requiring human interpretation.

Prompt
Original prompt

Source: dev.to · Christopher Mburu

Frequently asked questions

Was this a real booked trip?

No. The author explicitly says profiles and trip dates were seeded fixtures and the plan ended pending approval.

What changed after the debrief?

Hermes wrote a layover constraint to memory and applied it in the later Dubai recommendation.

Were the fixture details consistent?

Not fully. A nonstop first recommendation, a six-hour layover complaint and differing later constraints need human interpretation.

More details

Remaining steps

  1. A later plan uses the updated preference without another reminder.

About this account

Hermes recalls seeded traveler preferences and searches for a Dubai itinerary. It stops the proposed plan at pending approval and reads the stored visa information.

Firsthand account opened and read. Outcome is source-reported, not independently reproduced. Seeded demo; no actual booking or visa validation. First plan and layover debrief are inconsistent. Original prompt box contains a short excerpt of the author's published actual-run instructions.

Credit: Christopher Mburu

Source published 31 May 2026

Source checked 15 Oct 2026

Tools and topics

Hermes Agent · Web search · Persistent memory

Hermes Agent · Web search · Persistent memory

Editorial completeness: 100/100. Measures documented fields, not agent performance or verified outcomes.