@ai-content-space/loopx 0.1.4 → 0.1.6

package/scripts/verify-skills.mjs

@@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env node
+
+import assert from 'node:assert/strict';
+import { existsSync } from 'node:fs';
+import { readdir, readFile } from 'node:fs/promises';
+import { dirname, join, resolve } from 'node:path';
+import { fileURLToPath } from 'node:url';
+
+import { LOOPX_BUNDLED_SKILLS } from '../src/install-discovery.mjs';
+
+const repoRoot = resolve(dirname(fileURLToPath(import.meta.url)), '..');
+const packageJson = JSON.parse(await readFile(join(repoRoot, 'package.json'), 'utf8'));
+const pluginManifest = JSON.parse(await readFile(join(repoRoot, 'plugins', 'loopx', '.codex-plugin', 'plugin.json'), 'utf8'));
+const resolverPath = join(repoRoot, 'skills', 'RESOLVER.md');
+const markdownPaths = [
+  'README.md',
+  'README.zh-CN.md',
+  'AGENTS.md',
+  'skills/RESOLVER.md',
+];
+const personalPathPattern = /\/(?:Users|home)\/[A-Za-z0-9._-]+\//;
+const localRefPattern = /(?<![/.])\b(?:references|agents|scripts)\/[\w/.-]+\b/g;
+
+function parseFrontmatter(path, text) {
+  assert.equal(text.startsWith('---\n'), true, `${path} must start with YAML frontmatter`);
+  const end = text.indexOf('\n---\n', 4);
+  assert.notEqual(end, -1, `${path} frontmatter must close with ---`);
+
+  const fields = {};
+  let inMetadata = false;
+  for (const line of text.slice(4, end).split('\n')) {
+    if (line === 'metadata:') {
+      inMetadata = true;
+      continue;
+    }
+    if (inMetadata && line.startsWith('  version:')) {
+      fields.version = line.split(':', 2)[1].trim().replace(/^"|"$/g, '');
+      continue;
+    }
+    if (!line || line.startsWith(' ')) {
+      continue;
+    }
+    inMetadata = false;
+    const separator = line.indexOf(':');
+    assert.notEqual(separator, -1, `${path} has invalid frontmatter line: ${line}`);
+    const key = line.slice(0, separator).trim();
+    const raw = line.slice(separator + 1).trim();
+    fields[key] = raw.replace(/^"|"$/g, '');
+  }
+  return fields;
+}
+
+function assertSkillDescription(skillName, description) {
+  assert.ok(description, `${skillName} missing description`);
+  assert.ok(description.length >= 40, `${skillName} description is too short`);
+  assert.ok(description.length <= 500, `${skillName} description is too long`);
+  assert.match(description, /not for/i, `${skillName} description must include a Not for exclusion`);
+}
+
+async function assertMarkdownStructure(relativePath) {
+  const path = join(repoRoot, relativePath);
+  assert.equal(existsSync(path), true, `${relativePath} missing`);
+  const text = await readFile(path, 'utf8');
+  assert.equal(text.endsWith('\n'), true, `${relativePath} missing final newline`);
+
+  const fenceStack = [];
+  text.split('\n').forEach((line, index) => {
+    assert.equal(/^(<<<<<<<|=======|>>>>>>>)($| )/.test(line), false, `${relativePath}:${index + 1}: merge conflict marker`);
+    const match = line.match(/^(`{3,}|~{3,})/);
+    if (!match) {
+      return;
+    }
+    const marker = match[1];
+    if (fenceStack.length > 0 && marker[0] === fenceStack.at(-1).char && marker.length >= fenceStack.at(-1).length) {
+      fenceStack.pop();
+      return;
+    }
+    fenceStack.push({ char: marker[0], length: marker.length, line: index + 1 });
+  });
+
+  assert.deepEqual(fenceStack, [], `${relativePath} has unclosed fenced block`);
+}
+
+function assertContains(text, value, label) {
+  assert.match(text, new RegExp(value.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\$&')), `${label} missing ${value}`);
+}
+
+async function assertPublicDocsAligned() {
+  const readme = await readFile(join(repoRoot, 'README.md'), 'utf8');
+  const readmeZh = await readFile(join(repoRoot, 'README.zh-CN.md'), 'utf8');
+  const commands = [
+    'loopx init',
+    'loopx clarify',
+    'loopx approve',
+    'loopx plan',
+    'loopx build',
+    'loopx review',
+    'loopx archive',
+    'loopx autopilot',
+    'loopx render',
+    'loopx status',
+    'loopx setup-context',
+    'loopx doctor',
+    'loopx migrate',
+    'loopx repair-install',
+    'node scripts/verify-skills.mjs',
+  ];
+  for (const command of commands) {
+    assertContains(readme, command, 'README.md');
+    assertContains(readmeZh, command, 'README.zh-CN.md');
+  }
+
+  const releaseNotesRoot = join(repoRoot, 'docs', 'release-notes');
+  const releaseNotes = existsSync(releaseNotesRoot)
+    ? (await readdir(releaseNotesRoot)).filter((name) => name.endsWith('.md'))
+    : [];
+  assert.ok(releaseNotes.includes(`${packageJson.version}.md`), `docs/release-notes/${packageJson.version}.md missing`);
+  for (const name of releaseNotes) {
+    await assertMarkdownStructure(`docs/release-notes/${name}`);
+  }
+}
+
+async function assertSkill(skillName, resolverText) {
+  const rootPath = join(repoRoot, 'skills', skillName, 'SKILL.md');
+  const pluginPath = join(repoRoot, 'plugins', 'loopx', 'skills', skillName, 'SKILL.md');
+  assert.equal(existsSync(rootPath), true, `${skillName} root SKILL.md missing`);
+  assert.equal(existsSync(pluginPath), true, `${skillName} plugin SKILL.md missing`);
+
+  const rootText = await readFile(rootPath, 'utf8');
+  const pluginText = await readFile(pluginPath, 'utf8');
+  assert.equal(pluginText, rootText, `${skillName} plugin mirror drifted`);
+  assert.equal(personalPathPattern.test(rootText), false, `${skillName} contains a personal absolute path`);
+
+  const fields = parseFrontmatter(rootPath, rootText);
+  assert.equal(fields.name, skillName, `${skillName} frontmatter name mismatch`);
+  assert.equal(fields.version, packageJson.version, `${skillName} metadata.version must match package.json`);
+  assert.ok(fields.when_to_use && fields.when_to_use.length >= 20, `${skillName} missing useful when_to_use metadata`);
+  assertSkillDescription(skillName, fields.description);
+  assert.match(resolverText, new RegExp(`skills/${skillName}/SKILL\\.md`), `${skillName} missing from skills/RESOLVER.md`);
+
+  const refs = [...rootText.matchAll(localRefPattern)].map((match) => match[0]);
+  for (const ref of refs) {
+    const target = join(repoRoot, 'skills', skillName, ref);
+    assert.equal(existsSync(target), true, `${skillName} references missing local file: ${ref}`);
+  }
+}
+
+assert.equal(pluginManifest.version, packageJson.version, 'plugin manifest version must match package.json');
+assert.equal(existsSync(resolverPath), true, 'skills/RESOLVER.md missing');
+
+for (const relativePath of markdownPaths) {
+  await assertMarkdownStructure(relativePath);
+}
+await assertPublicDocsAligned();
+
+const resolverText = await readFile(resolverPath, 'utf8');
+for (const skillName of LOOPX_BUNDLED_SKILLS) {
+  await assertSkill(skillName, resolverText);
+}
+
+const staleRefs = [...resolverText.matchAll(/skills\/([a-z][a-z0-9-]*)\/SKILL\.md/g)]
+  .map((match) => match[1])
+  .filter((skillName) => !LOOPX_BUNDLED_SKILLS.includes(skillName));
+assert.deepEqual([...new Set(staleRefs)], [], 'skills/RESOLVER.md contains stale bundled-skill refs');
+
+console.log(`ok: verified ${LOOPX_BUNDLED_SKILLS.length} loopx bundled skills`);

package/skills/RESOLVER.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# loopx Skill Resolver
+
+Central routing map for loopx bundled skills. Keep this file in sync with every bundled `skills/<name>/SKILL.md` and `plugins/loopx/skills/<name>/SKILL.md`.
+
+Read the selected skill file before acting. If multiple skills match, read every likely candidate and use the disambiguation rules below.
+
+## Public Workflow Skills
+
+| Trigger | Skill |
+|---|---|
+| Ambiguous request, unclear scope, non-goals, decision boundaries, requirements interview | `skills/clarify/SKILL.md` |
+| Approved clarify spec, direct requirements artifact, PRD/test/architecture planning, consensus planning | `skills/plan/SKILL.md` |
+| Approved plan execution, implementation persistence, review-requested implementation fixes | `skills/build/SKILL.md` |
+| Independent acceptance, code review, architecture-smell review, go/no-go after build | `skills/review/SKILL.md` |
+| Completed workflow needs long-lived spec sync and ADR candidate | `skills/archive/SKILL.md` |
+| User wants one bounded end-to-end loopx run over clarify/plan/build/review | `skills/autopilot/SKILL.md` |
+
+## Support Skills
+
+| Trigger | Skill |
+|---|---|
+| Bug, test failure, build failure, regression, unexpected behavior, root-cause investigation | `skills/debug/SKILL.md` |
+| Feature or bugfix implementation where behavior should be covered by a failing test first | `skills/tdd/SKILL.md` |
+| Completion, fixed, passing, review-ready, commit, or handoff claims need fresh evidence | `skills/verify/SKILL.md` |
+| Editing `.go` files or reviewing Go style inside build/review | `skills/go-style/SKILL.md` |
+| Go-Kratos proto, service, biz, data, middleware, auth, config, or Kratos troubleshooting | `skills/kratos/SKILL.md` |
+
+## Disambiguation
+
+1. If intent, scope, non-goals, or decision boundaries are unresolved, use `clarify` before `plan`.
+2. If requirements are approved but execution has not started, use `plan` before `build`.
+3. If implementation is broken or tests fail during build, use `debug` as the diagnostic lens before patching.
+4. If code is already implemented and needs acceptance, use `review`; do not run new build work from review.
+5. If review requests implementation-only fixes, route to `build --from-review`; route to `plan` only when the plan itself is wrong.
+6. If the user asks for autonomous execution, use `autopilot` only when requirements are bounded enough to run without new human decisions.
+7. Treat `tdd`, `verify`, `go-style`, and `kratos` as support lenses unless the user explicitly invokes them directly.
+8. `archive` is only valid after `review -> done`.
+
+## Deterministic Guard
+
+Run this before release or when changing bundled skills:
+
+```bash
+node scripts/verify-skills.mjs
+```

package/skills/archive/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: archive
-description: Sync an approved loopx change delta into long-lived specs after review is done.
+description: "Archives an approved loopx change delta into long-lived specs and writes an ADR candidate after done approval. Not for active builds or unapproved reviews."
+when_to_use: "archive, done workflow, spec delta, long-lived specs, ADR candidate, review approved, 归档, 同步规格"
+metadata:
+  version: "0.1.6"
 argument-hint: "<workflow slug>"
 ---
 
@@ -8,7 +11,7 @@ argument-hint: "<workflow slug>"
 
 ## Purpose
 
-Use `archive` after a loopx workflow has reached `done`. It syncs the accepted change delta into long-lived `.loopx/specs/` files, archives the change staging directory, and writes an advisory ADR candidate.
+Use `archive` after a loopx workflow has reached `done`, or immediately after an approved review that is waiting for `review -> done` completion. It syncs the accepted change delta into long-lived `.loopx/specs/` files, archives the change staging directory, and writes an advisory ADR candidate.
 
 The accepted delta is requirement-based, not a changelog block. Archive applies:
 
@@ -21,7 +24,7 @@ into the current long-lived `## Requirements` state for each target domain.
 
 ## Inputs
 
-- `<workflow slug>` for a completed loopx workflow
+- `<workflow slug>` for a completed loopx workflow, or for a review-approved workflow whose next route is `done`
 
 ## Behavior
 
@@ -31,9 +34,12 @@ Run:
 loopx archive <slug>
 ```
 
+If review already approved the workflow and the only pending transition is `review -> done`, this command consumes that completion transition before archiving. Do not ask the user to run a separate `loopx approve <slug> --from review --to done` command in that case.
+
 Then report in Chinese:
 
 - whether the change was archived
+- whether `review -> done` was consumed by archive
 - which long-lived spec files were updated
 - the archived change path
 - the ADR candidate path, if written
@@ -41,7 +47,7 @@ Then report in Chinese:
 
 ## Boundaries
 
-- Do not run archive before `review -> done` has been approved.
+- Do not run archive before review has approved the workflow and routed it to `done`.
 - Do not archive malformed requirement deltas. ADDED and MODIFIED entries must use `### Requirement:`, SHALL/MUST language, and at least one `#### Scenario:`.
 - Do not archive when `execution-record.md` declares non-empty `remaining_scope`, `completion_claim` other than `full`, or a mismatch between `planned_scope` and `implemented_scope`; route back to build/plan instead.
 - Do not edit implementation code.

package/skills/autopilot/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: autopilot
-description: Richer internal-phase loopx autonomous orchestration over the public clarify/plan/build/review flow.
+description: "Runs one bounded autonomous loopx orchestration over clarify, plan, build, and review while preserving canonical artifacts. Not for manual gate-by-gate control."
+when_to_use: "autopilot, autonomous loopx run, end-to-end workflow, run all stages, bounded orchestration, 自动执行, 全流程"
+metadata:
+  version: "0.1.6"
 argument-hint: "<workflow slug>"
 ---
 

package/skills/build/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: build
-description: Ralph-style loopx execution runtime under the public build stage.
+description: "Executes an approved loopx plan or review rework contract with evidence, verification, deslop, and regression gates. Not for unclear requirements or independent review."
+when_to_use: "build, implement approved plan, execute PRD, --from-review, review rework, implementation fixes, 执行, 实现, 修改"
+metadata:
+  version: "0.1.6"
 argument-hint: "[--no-deslop] <approved PRD path or workflow slug> | --from-review <review artifact path>"
 ---
 
@@ -30,6 +33,7 @@ By default, `build` is not a one-shot draft writer. It is a persistence loop wit
 - Execution may parallelize internally without exposing a public `team` stage.
 - `build` does not replace `review`.
 - `execution-record.md` remains the sole canonical execution and verification artifact.
+- `.loopx/config.json` is supporting context for existing project AI rules, existing spec sources, and discovered verification commands; use it to preserve local sources of truth, not to skip loopx stages.
 - Feature work and bug fixes should use `tdd`: write a failing test, confirm it fails for the intended reason, then implement the smallest passing change.
 - Bug, test-failure, build-failure, and unexpected-behavior work should use `debug` before proposing fixes.
 - Completion and review-ready claims should use `verify` before they are stated.
@@ -72,6 +76,8 @@ Compatible skill / CLI input:
 When invoked with a PRD path, derive `<slug>` from `prd-<slug>.md` and still use the matching workflow-local plan package and test spec.
 
 When invoked with `--from-review`, derive `<slug>` from the workflow directory, treat the review artifact as the implementation-fix contract, and load the matching PRD, test spec, previous `execution-record.md`, and workflow-local plan package as supporting context. This Codex skill invocation consumes the `review -> build` rework intent; users should not need a separate bash `loopx approve ... --from review --to build` step for the normal Codex-facing flow.
+
+Also load `.loopx/config.json` when present. Its `project_conventions` entries identify existing project rule/spec files that should be preserved, and its `verification_commands` entries are the first project-native commands to consider for fresh evidence.
 </Inputs>
 
 <Execution_Model>
@@ -194,6 +200,8 @@ These support artifacts are runtime aids only. They must not become new canonica
 <Final_Response_Contract>
 When `build` reaches review handoff readiness, the final response must include an explicit next skill command using the execution record path:
 
+Default review handoff after build readiness:
+
 ```text
 Next:
 $review .loopx/workflows/<slug>/execution-record.md

package/skills/clarify/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: clarify
-description: Comprehensive loopx clarify skill for requirements, boundaries, and design-ready specs.
+description: "Clarifies ambiguous loopx work into requirements, non-goals, decision boundaries, and design-ready specs before planning. Not for already-approved plans or concrete implementation tasks."
+when_to_use: "clarify, requirements, ambiguous request, unclear scope, non-goals, decision boundaries, acceptance criteria, 需求澄清, 范围不清"
+metadata:
+  version: "0.1.6"
 ---
 
 # loopx Clarify
@@ -305,8 +308,11 @@ After the clarify spec is ready:
 
 Preferred explicit handoff contract:
 
-- Recommended invocation: `$plan <slug>`
-- Artifact-pinned invocation when needed: `$plan --direct .loopx/intake/clarify-<slug>-<timestamp>.md`
+- Default handoff after normal loopx clarify: `$plan <slug>`
+- Conditional artifact-pinned handoff: `$plan --direct <spec-path>`
+- Recommend `$plan --direct <spec-path>` when the user explicitly wants to plan from a specific requirements artifact, when the source is external/manual/legacy, or when multiple plausible spec files exist and the user has chosen one as the planning source of truth.
+- Do not use `$plan --direct` to work around unclear workflow state, missing approvals, or an uncertain slug; inspect or repair the loopx runtime state instead.
+- For the normal loopx clarify happy path, prefer `$plan <slug>` because the active workflow slug already anchors the clarify artifact and runtime state.
 - Consumer behavior: treat the clarify spec as the source of truth for intent, non-goals, decision boundaries, constraints, and design direction; do not reopen clarification by default
 
 `clarify` itself does not implement the feature. The handoff recommendation must name `plan` as the next workflow step.

package/skills/debug/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: debug
-description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
+description: "Finds root cause for bugs, failing tests, build failures, regressions, and unexpected behavior before fixes. Not for new feature planning or routine code review."
+when_to_use: "debug, bug, test failure, build failure, regression, unexpected behavior, root cause, 报错, 失败, 回归, 排查"
+metadata:
+  version: "0.1.6"
 ---
 
 # Systematic Debugging

package/skills/go-style/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: go-style
-description: Go language style support for loopx. Use before creating or editing Go (.go) files, especially inside build execution lanes.
+description: "Applies loopx Go coding style for .go edits, tests, errors, context, naming, and interface boundaries. Not for non-Go code or Kratos-specific architecture by itself."
+when_to_use: "go-style, Go, golang, .go files, go tests, gofmt, idiomatic Go, Go style, Go 代码"
+metadata:
+  version: "0.1.6"
 ---
 
 # Go Style

package/skills/kratos/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: kratos
-description: Go-Kratos framework support for loopx. Use for Kratos microservices, proto/buf API work, service/biz/data layering, Kratos middleware, auth, configuration, and troubleshooting.
+description: "Supports Go-Kratos microservices, proto/buf APIs, service/biz/data layers, middleware, auth, config, and troubleshooting. Not for generic Go style alone."
+when_to_use: "kratos, Go-Kratos, proto, buf, service layer, biz layer, data layer, middleware, auth, config, Kratos 微服务"
+metadata:
+  version: "0.1.6"
 ---
 
 # Kratos

package/skills/plan/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: plan
-description: Consensus-first loopx planning skill with Planner, Architect, and Critic review.
+description: "Creates a consensus-first loopx plan package with Planner, Architect, and Critic review from an approved spec. Not for unresolved requirements or direct implementation."
+when_to_use: "plan, planning, consensus planning, PRD, architecture plan, test plan, approved clarify spec, 规划, 方案, 架构评审"
+metadata:
+  version: "0.1.6"
 argument-hint: "[--interactive] [--deliberate] [--direct <spec-path>] <clarified task or spec path>"
 ---
 
@@ -170,6 +173,14 @@ On approval, write canonical planning artifacts:
 - `.loopx/changes/active/<change-id>/slices.json`
 - `.loopx/changes/active/<change-id>/artifact-graph.json`
 
+Also generate derived HTML reading views:
+
+- `.loopx/workflows/<slug>/view/index.html`
+- `.loopx/workflows/<slug>/view/plan.html`
+- `.loopx/views/index.html`
+
+The HTML files are derived reading views for human plan review. They are not canonical fact sources; Markdown and JSON remain authoritative.
+
 The final plan must include:
 
 - ADR: Decision, Drivers, Alternatives considered, Why chosen, Consequences, Follow-ups
@@ -196,6 +207,24 @@ In `--interactive` mode, ask for the next lane:
 Without `--interactive`, report the approved plan and recommended next command, but do not launch execution.
 </Consensus_Workflow>
 
+<Final_Response_Contract>
+Default build handoff after an approved plan package:
+
+```text
+Next:
+$build .loopx/plans/prd-<slug>.md
+```
+
+Use the artifact-first PRD path because it pins build to the approved plan package. Do not emit `$build <slug>` as the primary handoff when `.loopx/plans/prd-<slug>.md` is known. If execution is not approved or plan gates remain blocked, state the blocker instead of emitting a build handoff.
+
+Also report the generated HTML reading entrypoint so the user can review the plan without running another command:
+
+```text
+HTML:
+.loopx/workflows/<slug>/view/index.html
+```
+</Final_Response_Contract>
+
 <Runtime_State_Machine>
 `plan` must keep the planning gate machine-checkable. Runtime state should track:
 
@@ -246,6 +275,7 @@ Primary outputs:
 - approved plan package under `.loopx/workflows/<slug>/`
 - canonical PRD and test spec under `.loopx/plans/`
 - change artifacts under `.loopx/changes/active/<change-id>/`
+- derived HTML reading views under `.loopx/workflows/<slug>/view/` and `.loopx/views/`
 - consensus review summary with Planner / Architect / Critic evidence
 - next-step recommendation
 

package/skills/review/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: review
-description: Repo-local acceptance surface for loopx.
+description: "Reviews a loopx build execution record for acceptance, code risks, evidence quality, and architecture smells. Not for doing implementation work or replanning."
+when_to_use: "review, code review, acceptance, go no-go, execution-record, architecture smell, build complete, 审查, 验收"
+metadata:
+  version: "0.1.6"
 argument-hint: "<execution-record path or workflow slug>"
 ---
 
@@ -22,6 +25,8 @@ Compatible skill / CLI input:
 
 When invoked with an execution record path, derive `<slug>` from the workflow directory and evaluate the matching active run.
 
+When present, use `.loopx/config.json` as supporting context for project-native verification commands, existing AI rule files, and existing spec sources. Do not treat those external or pre-existing sources as replacements for the loopx execution record and review artifact.
+
 ## Expected Outputs
 
 - a review artifact tied to the run being evaluated
@@ -42,6 +47,7 @@ Use stable machine values only where they are commands, file paths, JSON/state f
 - Use this only after build has produced execution and verification evidence for a specific run.
 - Stop here if review evidence is incomplete. `review` remains an independent gate and does not auto-complete the workflow.
 - Review must include code review of the build-owned implementation diff. Do not limit review to artifact/schema checks.
+- Review should compare verification evidence against project-native commands recorded in `.loopx/config.json` when available, while still accepting stronger task-specific verification from the approved plan.
 - Review must include the architecture-smell lane as part of review evidence. This is not a new workflow stage and must not create extra user steps.
 - Review must compare the execution scope against the approved workflow scope. If `execution-record.md` declares non-empty `remaining_scope`, `completion_claim` other than `full`, or a mismatch between `planned_scope` and `implemented_scope`, review must return no-go and route to build or plan. A partial slice may be accepted as useful work, but it must not be approved as full workflow completion.
 - Code review findings should focus on real bugs, regressions, missing tests, broken contracts, security/data-integrity risks, and user-visible behavior gaps.
@@ -59,6 +65,8 @@ Every no-go review result must end with a concrete next command block.
 
 For implementation fixes:
 
+Default implementation-fix handoff:
+
 ```text
 Next:
 $build --from-review .loopx/workflows/<slug>/review-report.md

package/skills/tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: tdd
-description: Use when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
+description: "Guides feature and bugfix implementation through a failing test before production code and red-green-refactor discipline. Not for generated files or throwaway prototypes."
+when_to_use: "tdd, failing test first, feature implementation, bugfix, regression test, red green refactor, 测试先行"
+metadata:
+  version: "0.1.6"
 ---
 
 # Test-Driven Development (TDD)

package/skills/verify/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 ---
 name: verify
-description: Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
+description: "Requires fresh verification evidence before claiming work is complete, fixed, passing, review-ready, or ready to commit. Not for speculative confidence or stale results."
+when_to_use: "verify, completion claim, fixed claim, tests pass, review-ready, commit, fresh evidence, 验证, 完成前检查"
+metadata:
+  version: "0.1.6"
 ---
 
 # Verification Before Completion

package/src/context-manifest.mjs

@@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ export async function generateBuildContextManifest({ cwd, root, state, slug }) {
     row(cwd, { stage: 'build', kind: 'review-rework', path: reviewReworkPath, reason: 'review_requested_implementation_fixes', priority: 33, required: requiresReviewRework }),
     row(cwd, { stage: 'build', kind: 'domain-context', path: contextPaths.domainGlossary, reason: 'domain_vocabulary', priority: 34, required: contextSetup.status !== 'missing' }),
     row(cwd, { stage: 'build', kind: 'agent-domain', path: contextPaths.agentDomain, reason: 'agent_context_rules', priority: 35, required: false }),
+    row(cwd, { stage: 'build', kind: 'workspace-config', path: join(cwd, '.loopx', 'config.json'), reason: 'project_rules_spec_sources_and_verification_commands', priority: 36, required: false }),
   ];
   const manifestPath = buildContextManifestPath(root);
   await writeContextManifest(manifestPath, rows);
@@ -157,6 +158,7 @@ export async function generateReviewContextManifest({ cwd, root, state, slug })
     row(cwd, { stage: 'review', kind: 'residual-risks', path: join(root, 'execution-record.md'), reason: 'residual_risk_reference', priority: 26, required: false }),
     row(cwd, { stage: 'review', kind: 'build-support', path: join(root, 'build-support'), reason: 'build_gate_evidence', priority: 30, required: false }),
     row(cwd, { stage: 'review', kind: 'agent-domain', path: contextPaths.agentDomain, reason: 'agent_context_rules', priority: 31, required: false }),
+    row(cwd, { stage: 'review', kind: 'workspace-config', path: join(cwd, '.loopx', 'config.json'), reason: 'project_rules_spec_sources_and_verification_commands', priority: 32, required: false }),
     row(cwd, { stage: 'review', kind: 'state', path: join(root, 'state.json'), reason: 'workflow_state', priority: 40 }),
   ];
   const manifestPath = reviewContextManifestPath(root);