@ai-content-space/loopx 0.2.0 → 0.2.2

package/skills/final-review/final-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+# Final Reviewer Prompt Template
+
+Use this template when dispatching a final-review subagent.
+
+**Purpose:** Review the complete feature for integration and runtime risk after task-level implementation and review are already done.
+
+```
+Native subagent:
+  description: "Final review completed feature"
+  prompt: |
+    You are a Senior Final Reviewer. Task-level implementation and review have
+    already happened. Your job is not to repeat per-task review. Your job is to
+    find whole-feature risks that can still break users, corrupt state, lose
+    data, or leave important behavior untested.
+
+    ## What Was Implemented
+
+    {DESCRIPTION}
+
+    ## Requirements / Plan / Spec
+
+    {REQUIREMENTS}
+
+    ## Verification Evidence
+
+    {VERIFICATION}
+
+    ## Per-Task Reviews
+
+    {PER_TASK_REVIEWS}
+
+    ## Full Feature Git Range
+
+    **Base:** {BASE_SHA}
+    **Head:** {HEAD_SHA}
+
+    ```bash
+    git diff --stat {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
+    git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
+    ```
+
+    ## Review Priority
+
+    Review in this exact priority order:
+
+    1. Runtime bugs, data loss, broken CLI behavior, state corruption
+    2. Cross-task integration bugs
+    3. Missing edge cases not covered by tests
+    4. Test quality problems
+    5. Architecture and maintainability issues
+    6. Documentation defects that can mislead users or maintainers, omit
+       required operational facts, or contradict actual behavior
+
+    Do not report pure documentation polish, style preferences, or wording
+    tweaks. Do report documentation problems that create wrong usage, wrong
+    maintenance decisions, missing required commands, missing migration notes,
+    or false claims.
+
+    ## What to Check
+
+    **Runtime and state risk:**
+    - Can any command crash, hang, silently no-op, or report success incorrectly?
+    - Can repeated runs corrupt files, state, locks, indexes, caches, or config?
+    - Can user data, generated artifacts, branches, or worktrees be lost?
+    - Are filesystem, process, permission, platform, and concurrency errors handled?
+
+    **Integration risk:**
+    - Do task outputs match later task inputs?
+    - Do CLI flags, exported functions, filenames, state keys, and schemas align?
+    - Does the feature work as a complete workflow, not just as isolated pieces?
+    - Are old data, missing files, and partially completed states handled?
+
+    **Tests:**
+    - Do tests execute real behavior rather than only mocks or snapshots?
+    - Are failure paths, edge cases, repeat runs, and integration paths covered?
+    - Are the verification commands sufficient for the changed surface area?
+
+    **Architecture:**
+    - Is the implementation maintainable within existing module boundaries?
+    - Did the feature add avoidable coupling or hidden global state?
+    - Are abstractions justified by actual complexity?
+
+    **Documentation defects:**
+    - Does documentation contradict actual behavior?
+    - Are required user or maintainer steps missing?
+    - Would a future agent follow the docs and make the wrong change?
+
+    ## Output Format
+
+    ### Findings
+
+    #### Critical
+    [Must fix before finish: data loss, state corruption, broken workflow,
+    security issue, or reliable runtime failure]
+
+    #### Important
+    [Should fix before finish: integration bug, untested edge case, weak test
+    proving too little, misleading docs that affect usage or maintenance]
+
+    #### Minor
+    [Low-risk maintainability or clarity issues. No pure polish.]
+
+    For each finding:
+    - File:line reference
+    - What is wrong
+    - Why it matters
+    - How to fix or what evidence would resolve it
+
+    ### Coverage Notes
+    [Briefly state which runtime paths and tests you inspected.]
+
+    ### Assessment
+
+    **Ready for finish?** [Yes | No | With fixes]
+
+    **Reasoning:** [1-2 sentence risk-based assessment]
+
+    ## Critical Rules
+
+    **DO:**
+    - Read the actual diff, not only reports
+    - Focus on complete workflow behavior
+    - Treat tests as evidence to audit, not proof to trust blindly
+    - Report documentation defects that can mislead or omit required facts
+    - Give file:line references
+
+    **DON'T:**
+    - Repeat task-level nits unless they create whole-feature risk
+    - Report pure documentation polish
+    - Assume per-task reviews caught integration bugs
+    - Give a vague "looks good"
+    - Avoid a clear verdict
+```
+
+**Reviewer returns:** Findings by severity, Coverage Notes, Assessment.

package/skills/finish/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: finish
 description: "Finishes completed loopx development work after tests pass by presenting merge, PR, keep, or discard options. Not for unfinished work or failing verification."
 when_to_use: "implementation complete, tests pass, finish branch, create pull request, merge locally, keep branch, discard work"
 metadata:
-  version: "0.2.0"
+  version: "0.2.2"
 ---
 
 # Finish
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ metadata:
 
 Guide completion of development work by presenting clear options and handling chosen workflow.
 
-**Core principle:** Verify tests → Detect environment → Present options → Execute choice → Clean up.
+**Core principle:** Verify tests → extract memory/spec learnings → Present options → Execute choice → Clean up.
 
 **Announce at start:** "I'm using the finish skill to complete this work."
 
@@ -66,7 +66,90 @@ git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD master 2>/dev/null
 
 Or ask: "This branch split from main - is that correct?"
 
-### Step 4: Present Options
+### Step 4: Learning Extraction
+
+Run learning extraction before presenting merge, PR, keep, or discard options.
+
+Allowed inputs:
+- current git diff
+- executed verification output
+- plan, spec, and review artifacts used in this task
+- explicit user decisions in the current conversation
+- existing `.loopx/memory/MEMORY.md` and `.loopx/memory/index.jsonl`
+- existing `docs/loopx/specs/*.md`
+
+Learning extraction priority:
+1. Durable behavior, contracts, or constraints proven by the implementation
+2. State, file, CLI, API, install, migration, compatibility, or test invariants
+3. Explicit user decisions that constrain future work
+4. Review findings or fixes that reveal a reusable pitfall, pattern, or boundary
+5. Documentation changes when they define, correct, or preserve one of the above
+
+Do not infer durable rules from agent intuition alone. Do not promote unverified implementation details.
+
+#### Memory
+
+Memory is local, agent-queryable project context. It is not repo-tracked by default.
+
+Use:
+
+```text
+.loopx/memory/MEMORY.md
+.loopx/memory/index.jsonl
+.loopx/memory/entries/
+.loopx/memory/archive/
+```
+
+`MEMORY.md` is the bounded curated summary an agent should read first. Keep it dense and useful.
+
+`index.jsonl` is a curated active index, not an append-only history. It should point only to active memory cards worth querying.
+
+Use memory only for facts that will help a future agent avoid rework, avoid mistakes, or preserve a decision. Do not record process negatives such as "no spec promotion".
+
+One finish run may write 0-3 active memory cards. If more learnings appear, consolidate, promote to spec, archive stale cards, or skip low-signal items.
+
+Memory entry index rows should use this shape:
+
+```json
+{"id":"2026-06-02-example","type":"decision","domain":"workflow","tags":["finish"],"summary":"finish writes local memory and repo-tracked spec candidates","path":"entries/2026-06-02-example.md","created_at":"2026-06-02T00:00:00Z"}
+```
+
+Allowed memory `type` values:
+- `decision`
+- `constraint`
+- `pattern`
+- `pitfall`
+- `handoff`
+
+Finish may automatically update `.loopx/memory/MEMORY.md`, `.loopx/memory/index.jsonl`, and active memory cards. The final response must list the memory changes.
+
+#### Spec Candidates
+
+Spec extraction is conditional. Run the audit every time, but write spec candidates only when the task produced stable, shared, reusable project rules.
+
+Write repo-tracked candidates directly to:
+
+```text
+docs/loopx/specs/<domain>.md
+```
+
+If the domain is unclear, use:
+
+```text
+docs/loopx/specs/inbox.md
+```
+
+Recommended domains:
+- `workflow`
+- `skills`
+- `installation`
+- `memory`
+- `testing`
+- `inbox`
+
+Spec candidates must be visible in the repo diff and reported in the final response. Do not silently change team specs.
+
+### Step 5: Present Options
 
 **Normal repo and named-branch worktree — present exactly these 4 options:**
 
@@ -95,7 +178,7 @@ Which option?
 
 **Don't add explanation** - keep options concise.
 
-### Step 5: Execute Choice
+### Step 6: Execute Choice
 
 #### Option 1: Merge Locally
 
@@ -112,10 +195,10 @@ git merge <feature-branch>
 # Verify tests on merged result
 <test command>
 
-# Only after merge succeeds: cleanup worktree (Step 6), then delete branch
+# Only after merge succeeds: cleanup worktree (Step 7), then delete branch
 ```
 
-Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 6), then delete branch:
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 7), then delete branch:
 
 ```bash
 git branch -d <feature-branch>
@@ -166,12 +249,12 @@ MAIN_ROOT=$(git -C "$(git rev-parse --git-common-dir)/.." rev-parse --show-tople
 cd "$MAIN_ROOT"
 ```
 
-Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 6), then force-delete branch:
+Then: Cleanup worktree (Step 7), then force-delete branch:
 ```bash
 git branch -D <feature-branch>
 ```
 
-### Step 6: Cleanup Workspace
+### Step 7: Cleanup Workspace
 
 **Only runs for Options 1 and 4.** Options 2 and 3 always preserve the worktree.
 
@@ -203,6 +286,25 @@ git worktree prune  # Self-healing: clean up any stale registrations
 | 3. Keep as-is | - | - | yes | - |
 | 4. Discard | - | - | - | yes (force) |
 
+## Final Response Contract
+
+Every finish response must include the verification result, chosen completion action, memory changes, and Spec candidates.
+
+Use this shape:
+
+```text
+Memory:
+- updated: .loopx/memory/MEMORY.md
+- entries: <N> added, <N> archived
+- summary:
+  - <high-signal memory change>
+
+Spec candidates:
+- docs/loopx/specs/<domain>.md: <candidate change>
+```
+
+If there are no memory changes or spec candidates, report `none`. Do not write `none` into memory.
+
 ## Common Mistakes
 
 **Skipping test verification**

package/skills/fix-review/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: fix-review
 description: "Handles received code review feedback with verification, technical evaluation, pushback, and one-item-at-a-time fixes. Not for requesting a new review or implementing unrelated changes."
 when_to_use: "fix-review, received code review feedback, review comments, reviewer suggestions, requested changes, 处理评审意见"
 metadata:
-  version: "0.2.0"
+  version: "0.2.2"
 ---
 
 # Fix Review

package/skills/go-style/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: go-style
 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: "0.2.0"
+  version: "0.2.2"
 ---
 
 # Go Style
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ metadata:
 
 `go-style` is a lightweight Go coding discipline skill. It should guide edits to `.go` files without overriding the repository's established conventions.
 
-Use it as a support skill from `build` when Go files are created or modified, and directly when the user asks for Go style, idiomatic Go, or Go code cleanup.
+Use it as a support skill from `subagent-exec` or `exec` when Go files are created or modified, and directly when the user asks for Go style, idiomatic Go, or Go code cleanup.
 
 ## Core Rules
 

package/skills/kratos/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: kratos
 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: "0.2.0"
+  version: "0.2.2"
 ---
 
 # Kratos
@@ -56,6 +56,12 @@ Use only the reference file needed for the current task:
 - Use validation annotations when the project already uses `buf.validate` or `protovalidate`.
 - Regenerate code with the repository's existing command, such as `buf generate`, `make api`, or project scripts.
 
+## Database DDL
+
+- MySQL `CREATE TABLE` statements must include a table-level `COMMENT`.
+- MySQL column definitions in `CREATE TABLE` or `ALTER TABLE ... ADD COLUMN` statements must include column-level `COMMENT`.
+- When using Ent schema for MySQL tables, add `.Comment(...)` to fields that are persisted as columns.
+
 ## Integration With Other loopx Skills
 
 - Use `go-style` for handwritten `.go` edits.

package/skills/plan/SKILL.md

@@ -3,8 +3,8 @@ name: plan
 description: "Creates bite-sized implementation plans from approved requirements, clarify output, or design specs with exact files, tests, commands, expected output, and execution handoff. Not for unresolved requirements, design decisions, PRD generation, or code changes."
 when_to_use: "plan, implementation plan, execution plan, task breakdown, approved requirements, approved design spec, docs/loopx/design, 实施计划, 执行计划, 任务拆分"
 metadata:
-  version: "0.2.0"
-argument-hint: "[--direct <design-spec-path>] <design spec path or feature name>"
+  version: "0.2.2"
+argument-hint: "<design spec path or feature name>"
 ---
 
 # loopx Plan

package/skills/refactor-plan/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: refactor-plan
 description: "Creates a behavior-preserving refactor plan with user interview, repo evidence, tiny commits, scope boundaries, and testing decisions. Not for feature changes or immediate implementation."
 when_to_use: "refactor-plan, refactor request, refactoring RFC, tiny commits, behavior-preserving cleanup, architecture cleanup, 重构计划"
 metadata:
-  version: "0.2.0"
+  version: "0.2.2"
 ---
 
 This skill will be invoked when the user wants to create a refactor request. You should go through the steps below. You may skip steps if you don't consider them necessary.

package/skills/review/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: review
 description: "Dispatches a loopx code reviewer subagent against a concrete git range and requirements. Not for implementation, planning, or unresolved review scope."
 when_to_use: "request code review, completed task review, major feature review, pre-merge review, subagent code quality check"
 metadata:
-  version: "0.2.0"
+  version: "0.2.2"
 ---
 
 # Review

package/skills/spec/DESIGN_SPEC_TEMPLATE.md

@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@
 - 推荐下一步：
 
 ```text
-$plan --direct docs/loopx/design/<需求名>需求设计文档.md
+$plan docs/loopx/design/<需求名>需求设计文档.md
 ```
 
 ## 十一、QA
@@ -320,4 +320,4 @@ $plan --direct docs/loopx/design/<需求名>需求设计文档.md
 
 | 问题 | 需要谁确认 | 阻塞阶段 | 推荐答案 | 状态 |
 |---|---|---|---|---|
-| <问题> | <角色> | clarify/spec/plan/build | <建议> | open/closed |
+| <问题> | <角色> | clarify/spec/plan/subagent-exec/exec/review | <建议> | open/closed |

package/skills/spec/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: spec
 description: "Writes software design specs from already-clarified requirements, including solution approach, architecture outline, detailed design, tradeoffs, verification design, and handoff context. Not for unresolved requirements, PRD generation, implementation task planning, or code changes."
 when_to_use: "spec, design spec, technical design, design proposal, detailed design, architecture design, 设计方案, 概要设计, 详细设计, 技术方案"
 metadata:
-  version: "0.2.0"
+  version: "0.2.2"
 ---
 
 # loopx Spec
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ The `十、排期与规划` section must include a `Planning Handoff` subsection
 After the spec is complete, recommend:
 
 ```text
-$plan --direct docs/loopx/design/<需求名>需求设计文档.md
+$plan docs/loopx/design/<需求名>需求设计文档.md
 ```
 
 Use `plan` only after the design document is internally consistent and all material requirements questions are resolved.

package/skills/subagent-exec/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: subagent-exec
 description: "Executes approved loopx implementation plans with fresh subagents per independent task and staged review. Not for planning, unclear requirements, or tightly coupled edits."
 when_to_use: "approved implementation plan, independent tasks, subagent execution, staged spec review, code quality review, parallel-capable execution"
 metadata:
-  version: "0.2.0"
+  version: "0.2.2"
 ---
 
 # Subagent Exec
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ digraph process {
 
     "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create update_plan" [shape=box];
     "More tasks remain?" [shape=diamond];
-    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [shape=box];
+    "Use loopx:final-review for entire implementation" [shape=box];
     "Use loopx:finish" [shape=box style=filled fillcolor=lightgreen];
 
     "Read plan, extract all tasks with full text, note context, create update_plan" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)";
@@ -84,8 +84,8 @@ digraph process {
     "Code quality reviewer subagent approves?" -> "Mark task complete in update_plan" [label="yes"];
     "Mark task complete in update_plan" -> "More tasks remain?";
     "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch implementer subagent (./implementer-prompt.md)" [label="yes"];
-    "More tasks remain?" -> "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" [label="no"];
-    "Dispatch final code reviewer subagent for entire implementation" -> "Use loopx:finish";
+    "More tasks remain?" -> "Use loopx:final-review for entire implementation" [label="no"];
+    "Use loopx:final-review for entire implementation" -> "Use loopx:finish";
 }
 ```
 
@@ -199,8 +199,8 @@ Code reviewer: ✅ Approved
 ...
 
 [After all tasks]
-[Dispatch final code-reviewer]
-Final reviewer: All requirements met, ready to merge
+[Use loopx:final-review]
+Final reviewer: No whole-feature runtime or integration risks found. Ready for finish.
 
 Done!
 ```
@@ -273,6 +273,7 @@ Done!
 
 - **loopx:plan** - Creates the plan this skill executes
 - **loopx:review** - Code review template for reviewer subagents
+- **loopx:final-review** - Final whole-feature runtime and integration risk review
 - **loopx:finish** - Complete development after all tasks
 
 **Subagents should use:**

package/skills/tdd/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: tdd
 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: "0.2.0"
+  version: "0.2.2"
 ---
 
 # Test-Driven Development (TDD)

package/skills/verify/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: verify
 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: "0.2.0"
+  version: "0.2.2"
 ---
 
 # Verification Before Completion

package/src/cli.mjs

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ function usage() {
     '  loopx init [--slug <slug>] [--enable-agent-delegation] [--auto-agent-delegation] [--agent-delegation-threshold <local|critic-only|parallel-review>]',
     '  loopx clarify <slug> [--standard|--deep]',
     '  loopx approve <slug> --from <stage> --to <stage>',
-    '  loopx plan [slug] [--direct <spec-path>] [--interactive] [--deliberate]',
+    '  loopx plan [slug] [--interactive] [--deliberate]',
     '  loopx build <slug> [--no-deslop]',
     '  loopx build --from-review <review-report-path> [--no-deslop]',
     '  loopx review <slug> [--reviewer <name>]',
@@ -242,7 +242,6 @@ async function main() {
       }
       case 'plan': {
         const result = await planStage(process.cwd(), positionals[0], {
-          directSpecPath: options.get('--direct'),
           interactive: Boolean(options.get('--interactive')),
           deliberate: Boolean(options.get('--deliberate')),
         });

package/src/install-discovery.mjs

@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ const LOOPX_SKILLS = [
   'subagent-exec',
   'exec',
   'review',
+  'final-review',
   'fix-review',
   'finish',
   'refactor-plan',