@ai-content-space/loopx 0.2.1 → 0.2.3

package/README.md

@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
 Recommended v1 flow:
 
 ```text
-clarify -> spec? -> plan -> subagent-exec | exec -> review -> fix-review? -> finish
+clarify -> spec? -> plan -> (subagent-exec | exec) -> final-review -> fix-review? -> finish
 ```
 
 `spec` is conditional. Use it when API, data, state, permission, migration, compatibility, product behavior, or architecture decisions must be fixed before planning. Skip it when the remaining work is local implementation choice.
@@ -32,10 +32,13 @@ Core workflow skills:
 - `subagent-exec`: execute an approved plan with fresh subagents and staged review.
 - `exec`: execute an approved plan inline when subagents are unavailable or not desired.
 - `review`: request independent code review against a git range and plan or requirements.
+- `final-review`: review the completed feature for runtime, integration, and test-gap risk before finishing.
 - `fix-review`: evaluate and implement code review feedback rigorously.
 - `finish`: verify and choose merge, PR, keep, or discard.
 - `refactor-plan`: interview and write a behavior-preserving refactor plan with tiny commits.
 
+`review` and its matching `fix-review` run inside `subagent-exec` or `exec` as task/checkpoint review loops. `final-review` is the top-level whole-feature review before `finish`, and its feedback also goes through `fix-review`.
+
 Support skills:
 
 - `tdd`
@@ -56,6 +59,8 @@ For the v1 skill-suite workflow, human-maintained artifacts live under `docs/loo
 
 `finish` may generate spec candidates in `docs/loopx/specs/` when completed work produces stable team rules. These candidates are repo-tracked and must remain visible in the git diff.
 
+`finish` is the terminal completion step for one implementation decision. Rerun it only after keep-as-is, PR iteration, interruption before executing a choice, or new changes after review feedback. Do not rerun it after merge or discard.
+
 Generated support state, hook diagnostics, installer metadata, HTML views, manifests, and runtime JSON remain under `.loopx/`.
 
 Local agent memory lives under `.loopx/memory/`:

package/README.zh-CN.md

@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
 推荐 v1 流程：
 
 ```text
-clarify -> spec? -> plan -> subagent-exec | exec -> review -> fix-review? -> finish
+clarify -> spec? -> plan -> (subagent-exec | exec) -> final-review -> fix-review? -> finish
 ```
 
 `spec` 是条件设计门。涉及 API、数据、状态、权限、迁移、兼容、产品行为或架构决策时使用；只剩局部实现选择时可以跳过，直接进入 `plan`。
@@ -32,10 +32,13 @@ clarify -> spec? -> plan -> subagent-exec | exec -> review -> fix-review? -> fin
 - `subagent-exec`：用 fresh subagents 和 staged review 执行已批准计划。
 - `exec`：没有 subagent 或用户选择 inline 时顺序执行计划。
 - `review`：基于 git range 和计划/需求发起独立代码评审。
+- `final-review`：在收尾前对完整 feature 做运行时、集成和测试缺口风险评审。
 - `fix-review`：严谨评估并处理 code review feedback。
 - `finish`：验证完成后选择 merge、PR、保留或丢弃。
 - `refactor-plan`：访谈并写行为保持的 tiny-commit 重构计划。
 
+`review` 和对应的 `fix-review` 在 `subagent-exec` 或 `exec` 内部作为 task/checkpoint review loop 运行。`final-review` 是 `finish` 前的顶层 whole-feature review，它的反馈也通过 `fix-review` 处理。
+
 辅助 skills：
 
 - `tdd`
@@ -56,6 +59,8 @@ v1 skill-suite 工作流的人工维护长期产物放在 `docs/loopx/`：
 
 当完成的工作产生稳定团队规则时，`finish` 可以在 `docs/loopx/specs/` 生成 spec candidates。这些候选是 repo-tracked，必须保留在 git diff 中供审阅。
 
+`finish` 是一次 implementation decision 的终端完成步骤。只有在上次选择保留、PR 迭代、执行选择前中断，或 review feedback 后出现新变更时才重新执行；merge 或 discard 后不要重复执行。
+
 生成的支撑状态、hook 诊断、安装元数据、HTML views、manifests 和 runtime JSON 仍放在 `.loopx/` 下。
 
 本地 agent memory 放在 `.loopx/memory/`：

package/docs/loopx/design/loopx-skill-suite-v1-design.md

@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ The v1 product surface is the installed and governed bundled skill suite:
 - `subagent-exec`
 - `exec`
 - `review`
+- `final-review`
 - `fix-review`
 - `finish`
 - `refactor-plan`
@@ -32,16 +33,16 @@ The repository may retain auxiliary or compatibility skill source directories fo
 Recommended flow:
 
 ```text
-clarify -> spec? -> plan -> subagent-exec | exec -> review -> fix-review? -> finish
+clarify -> spec? -> plan -> (subagent-exec | exec) -> final-review -> fix-review? -> finish
 ```
 
 `spec` is a conditional design gate. `clarify` may route directly to `plan` when the remaining questions are local implementation choices. It routes to `spec` when product behavior, APIs, state, data, permissions, migration, compatibility, or architecture decisions need to be fixed before implementation planning.
 
 `plan` is the superpowers `writing-plans` workflow under the loopx name. It writes executable plans and offers two execution options: `subagent-exec` recommended, or `exec` inline.
 
-`review` is the superpowers `requesting-code-review` workflow under the loopx name. `fix-review` is the superpowers `receiving-code-review` workflow under the loopx name.
+`review` is the task or checkpoint code review workflow inside `subagent-exec` or `exec`. `final-review` is the top-level whole-feature runtime, integration, and test-gap review before completion. `fix-review` handles feedback from either review layer.
 
-`finish` verifies completion, extracts local memory, proposes repo-tracked spec candidates when stable team rules emerged, then presents merge, PR, keep, or discard options.
+`finish` verifies completion, extracts local memory, proposes repo-tracked spec candidates when stable team rules emerged, then presents merge, PR, keep, or discard options. It is the terminal completion step for one implementation decision; rerun it only after keep-as-is, PR iteration, interruption before choice execution, or new changes after review feedback. Do not rerun it after merge or discard.
 
 ## Artifacts
 

package/package.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "name": "@ai-content-space/loopx",
   "type": "module",
-  "version": "0.2.1",
+  "version": "0.2.3",
   "description": "Skill-first workflow suite for agentic coding assistants",
   "repository": {
     "type": "git",

package/plugins/loopx/.codex-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "loopx",
-  "version": "0.2.1",
+  "version": "0.2.3",
   "description": "Skill-first workflow suite for agentic coding assistants",
   "skills": "./skills/",
   "interface": {

package/plugins/loopx/skills/clarify/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: clarify
 description: "Grills ambiguous loopx work until material questions are answered, then routes to spec or plan using a design gate. Not for clear implementation tasks, approved specs, or code changes."
 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: "0.2.1"
+  version: "0.2.3"
 ---
 
 # loopx Clarify

package/plugins/loopx/skills/debug/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: debug
 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: "0.2.1"
+  version: "0.2.3"
 ---
 
 # Systematic Debugging

package/plugins/loopx/skills/exec/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: exec
 description: "Executes a written loopx implementation plan sequentially with review checkpoints. Not for unclear plans, missing requirements, or subagent-first execution."
 when_to_use: "written implementation plan, inline execution, sequential plan execution, review checkpoints, no subagent lane"
 metadata:
-  version: "0.2.1"
+  version: "0.2.3"
 ---
 
 # Exec
@@ -35,9 +35,12 @@ For each task:
 ### Step 3: Complete Development
 
 After all tasks complete and verified:
+- Announce: "I'm using the final-review skill to review the completed feature."
+- **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use loopx:final-review
+- If final-review finds Critical or Important issues, use loopx:fix-review to handle feedback before proceeding
 - Announce: "I'm using the finish skill to complete this work."
 - **REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use loopx:finish
-- Follow that skill to verify tests, present options, execute choice
+- Follow finish to verify tests, present options, execute choice
 
 ## When to Stop and Ask for Help
 
@@ -68,4 +71,6 @@ After all tasks complete and verified:
 
 **Required workflow skills:**
 - **loopx:plan** - Creates the plan this skill executes
+- **loopx:final-review** - Final whole-feature runtime and integration risk review
+- **loopx:fix-review** - Handles final-review feedback before finish
 - **loopx:finish** - Complete development after all tasks

package/plugins/loopx/skills/final-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+---
+name: final-review
+description: "Performs whole-feature review after implementation and staged task review. Not for per-task review, unresolved scope, implementation, or pure documentation polish."
+when_to_use: "final-review, final code review, whole feature review, integration review, pre-finish review, after subagent-exec, runtime risk review, 最终评审"
+metadata:
+  version: "0.2.3"
+---
+
+# Final Review
+
+Run the final whole-feature review after implementation is complete and before `finish`.
+
+**Core principle:** Per-task review catches local issues. Final review hunts integration and runtime risk across the complete feature.
+
+**Announce at start:** "I'm using the final-review skill to review the completed feature."
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use this after:
+- `subagent-exec` completed all planned tasks and per-task reviews
+- `exec` completed a full plan with verification checkpoints
+- ad-hoc implementation is complete and ready for final risk review
+
+Do not use this for:
+- reviewing one task or one small checkpoint (`review` is for that)
+- fixing review feedback (`fix-review` is for that)
+- polishing documentation wording
+- incomplete implementation or failing verification
+
+## Required Inputs
+
+Before dispatching the reviewer, collect:
+- Full feature git range: base SHA before implementation, head SHA now
+- Source requirements: spec, plan, issue, PRD, or accepted task brief
+- Implementation summary: what changed and why
+- Verification evidence: commands run and results
+- Per-task review artifacts, if available
+
+If the git range or requirements are unclear, stop and ask. A final review without a concrete scope is not useful.
+
+## Review Priority
+
+The reviewer must prioritize findings in this 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.
+
+## Dispatch
+
+Use the platform's native subagent mechanism when available and fill template at `final-reviewer.md`.
+
+**Placeholders:**
+- `{DESCRIPTION}` - concise summary of the completed feature
+- `{REQUIREMENTS}` - source requirements or plan/spec excerpts
+- `{VERIFICATION}` - test commands and results
+- `{PER_TASK_REVIEWS}` - review artifacts or "not available"
+- `{BASE_SHA}` - commit before implementation began
+- `{HEAD_SHA}` - current commit
+
+## Handle Feedback
+
+- Critical and Important findings must be handled before `finish`
+- Use `fix-review` for received feedback
+- Push back only with code, test, or requirement evidence
+- After fixes, run verification again and repeat final review if the fix changed integration behavior
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+**Running normal review again**
+- Problem: reviewer repeats per-task or documentation comments
+- Fix: use `final-reviewer.md`, which focuses on whole-feature runtime risk
+
+**Letting docs hide real risk**
+- Problem: "docs only" findings are ignored even when users would be misled
+- Fix: distinguish pure polish from operationally incorrect or missing documentation
+
+**Reviewing without base/head SHAs**
+- Problem: reviewer sees an unclear or stale diff
+- Fix: provide an exact git range every time
+
+**Skipping verification evidence**
+- Problem: reviewer cannot judge whether tests prove real behavior
+- Fix: include exact commands and pass/fail output summary

package/plugins/loopx/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/plugins/loopx/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: "0.2.1"
+  version: "0.2.3"
 ---
 
 # Finish
@@ -78,6 +78,13 @@ Allowed inputs:
 - 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

package/plugins/loopx/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: "0.2.1"
+  version: "0.2.3"
 ---
 
 # Fix Review

package/plugins/loopx/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: "0.2.1"
+  version: "0.2.3"
 ---
 
 # Go Style
@@ -59,7 +59,13 @@ Choose the one already used in the codebase.
 
 - Exported symbols should have Go doc comments that start with the symbol name.
 - Short local comments are acceptable when they explain why, not what.
-- Prefer complete sentences for package, exported type, exported function, and non-obvious behavior comments.
+- Prefer complete sentences for package, exported type, exported function, exported method, and non-obvious behavior comments.
+- Match new comments to the user's requested language. If the user asks in Chinese or explicitly requests Chinese comments, write new comments in Chinese while preserving Go doc naming conventions such as `// UserService ...` and `// CreateUser ...`.
+- Do not translate existing comments unless the user explicitly asks for translation; preserve the surrounding file's established comment language when no user preference is stated.
+- Remove comments that only restate syntax, names, or immediately obvious control flow.
+- Add comments for non-obvious business rules, ordering constraints, compatibility behavior, concurrency assumptions, performance tradeoffs, and external API quirks.
+- Check nearby existing comments when behavior changes; stale comments are worse than missing comments.
+- Prefer clearer names, smaller functions, or stronger types over comments that explain avoidable confusion.
 
 ## Verification
 

package/plugins/loopx/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: "0.2.1"
+  version: "0.2.3"
 ---
 
 # 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/plugins/loopx/skills/plan/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ 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: "0.2.1"
+  version: "0.2.3"
 argument-hint: "<design spec path or feature name>"
 ---
 
@@ -156,13 +156,13 @@ Plan complete and saved to `docs/loopx/plans/<filename>.md`.
 
 Two execution options:
 
-1. Subagent-Driven (recommended) - dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
+1. Subagent Exec (recommended) - dispatch a fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
 2. Inline Execution - execute tasks in this session using exec, batch execution with checkpoints
 
 Which approach?
 ```
 
-If Subagent-Driven is chosen:
+If Subagent Exec is chosen:
 
 - REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use `loopx:subagent-exec`
 - Fresh subagent per task plus two-stage review

package/plugins/loopx/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: "0.2.1"
+  version: "0.2.3"
 ---
 
 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/plugins/loopx/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: "0.2.1"
+  version: "0.2.3"
 ---
 
 # Review

package/plugins/loopx/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: "0.2.1"
+  version: "0.2.3"
 ---
 
 # loopx Spec

package/plugins/loopx/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: "0.2.1"
+  version: "0.2.3"
 ---
 
 # 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/plugins/loopx/skills/subagent-exec/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
 interface:
-  display_name: "Subagent-Driven Development"
-  short_description: "Execute implementation plans with staged subagent reviews"
+  display_name: "Subagent Exec"
+  short_description: "Execute loopx plans with staged subagent reviews"

package/plugins/loopx/skills/subagent-exec/codex-subagents.md

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Use this reference before executing this skill in Codex.
 
 Subagent dispatch requires Codex multi-agent support. If `spawn_agent`,
 `wait_agent`, or `close_agent` are unavailable, do not pretend this skill ran
-as subagent-driven development. Use `loopx:exec` instead.
+as subagent-exec. Use `loopx:exec` instead.
 
 Codex environments that require explicit feature flags should enable:
 

package/plugins/loopx/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: "0.2.1"
+  version: "0.2.3"
 ---
 
 # Test-Driven Development (TDD)

package/plugins/loopx/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: "0.2.1"
+  version: "0.2.3"
 ---
 
 # Verification Before Completion