| name | closed-loop |
| description | Run the full audit → core-review → fix → fix-verify → gate → commit
workflow on a harmony stage topic (NAPI / Engine / Audio / Video /
NativeBuffer / Resource lifecycle / Input+EventBridge /
SaveState+SRAM+Disk). Use when user says "跑闭环 X" / "audit + 修 X" /
"完整审一下 X" / "/closed-loop". Drives the 8-step trust chain
end-to-end with 4 mandatory human checkpoints.
|
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| allowed-tools | Bash, Read, Grep, Glob, Edit, Write, Agent, TaskCreate, TaskUpdate, TaskList, TaskGet |
| model | sonnet |
| trigger | when user explicitly invokes /closed-loop, OR says "完整闭环走一遍 / audit + 修 / 闭环跑 X" |
/closed-loop — Audit → Core-Review → Fix → Verify → Commit (harmony)
What this exists for
scripts/check/quick_signals.sh proves build/regression hygiene but
doesn't catch semantic / cross-language / NativeBuffer-lifecycle
bugs. The closed-loop catches what fast signals can't, and crucially
does it with machine-re-verifiable trust between every stage:
sub-agents (broad discovery, parallel by topic)
↓ each finding has structured citation (file:line + evidence_excerpt)
↓ main Claude MECHANICALLY re-reads cited file:line via Read + grep
main Claude (single reviewer + implementer)
↓ judges REAL / REAL_LOWER / DESIGN / FALSE_POSITIVE per-finding
↓ fixes REAL findings directly via Edit
↓ if fix touches entry/src/main/cpp/app/napi/** → MUST dispatch
napi-boundary-reviewer agent BEFORE applying the edit
↓ re-dispatches same audit topic on the fix code
sub-agents (fix verification)
↓ each fix-finding cites the fix code (where the new guard lives)
↓ main Claude re-verifies fix citations via Read + grep
gate gauntlet (bash scripts/check/quick_signals.sh)
↓ green
human checkpoint
↓ approves commit message + scope
git commit
No step trusts the previous step's claim. This is harmony's adapted
form of the trust chain pattern; see [[harness-fusion-2026-05-24]].
When to invoke
Use this skill when:
- User explicitly says
/closed-loop or "跑闭环" / "audit + 修" / "完整审"
- User asks to deep-audit + fix a specific scope (one of the 8 topics
below, or a custom scope)
- A major milestone is about to commit and we want one last semantic sweep
Do NOT use this skill for:
- Quick sanity check (use
bash scripts/check/quick_signals.sh)
- Single-file lookup (use Read/Grep)
- Plain agent dispatch without verification (just use
Agent tool directly)
- UI / ArkTS-only fixes (different workflow, ts/ets layer doesn't have
NativeBuffer lifetime hazards that justify the full 8-step gauntlet)
Topics (8 fixed, harmony-tuned)
每个 topic 的完整 scope / files / hazards / done-criteria 模板见 topics/T<n>-<name>.md。
本表只列 ID + name + 一句话 scope,主流程节点引用 topic file 详情(progressive disclosure)。
新增 topic: 复制 topics/T<n>.md 模板(任一现存的拿来改),把新行加到上表。
主 SKILL.md 不再变长。
The 8 fix steps (Step 0 是 sprint contract，不计入 fix step；Step 5 Rebuild 已并入 Step 7)
Contract block(2026-05-29 加,见 memory feedback_task_contract_missing)
每个 Step 开头的 5 段契约块统一使用以下缩写格式(避免 SKILL 膨胀):
> **In**: <上一步产物 file/state>
> **Out**: <我交什么 → 下一步如何 trust>
> **Role**: [L1 脚本 / L2 MCP / L3 subagent / L4 主 AI] + [NOT 越权]
> **Done**: [ ] checklist 可勾选
ROLE 4 层:L1 脚本(机械事实)/L2 MCP(语义查询)/L3 subagent(并行发现)/L4 主 AI(推理判断)。
越权(任何方向)= bug,见 memory feedback_skill_role_separation。
Step 0 — Done criteria(sprint contract,开工前定)
In: user 指定 topic(T1-T8)+ AUDIT_DIR 已建
Out: AUDIT_DIR/DONE.md — 本次 audit 边界 + done-checklist → Step 1+ 据此约束 scope
Role: [L4 主 AI] cat topic 模板 + 按本次范围调整 checkbox; [NOT] 不开工 audit
Done: [ ] AUDIT_DIR/DONE.md 含 scope-in / scope-out / 完成判据,user 已 review
外网共识(Addy Osmani):"写下 done-condition 阻止 scope drift 比任何 prompt 调整都管用"。
项目 memory feedback_completeness_is_scenario_not_form 反复出现的根因——开工时未明确
"什么叫审完",fix 完了才回头问 "够不够"。
动作:在创建 AUDIT_DIR 之后(Step 1 之前)立刻:
cat .claude/skills/closed-loop/topics/T<n>-<name>.md 拿到该 topic 的 hazards
清单 + done-criteria 模板(2026-05-28 progressive disclosure 拆分)- 把模板 copy 到
AUDIT_DIR/DONE.md,按本次 audit 的具体范围调整 checkbox
# Done criteria — audit-<TS> (topic: T<n>)
## 边界(必明确,防 scope drift)
- Scope in: <文件 glob / 目录列表 / 行为子集>
- Scope out: <显式排除的相邻子系统,例如 "T7 不审 ArkTS 侧 keymap UI">
## 完成条件(场景驱动,逐条 checkbox,fix 完逐条勾选)
- [ ] 所有 P0 finding 已 fix 或显式标记 WONT_FIX(理由必填)
- [ ] 所有 fix 通过 Step 5/6 verify(verify agent 报 FIXED + 主 Claude citation 确认)
- [ ] Step 7 quick_signals 全 PASS
- [ ] 业务侧"会踩坑的真实场景"(由用户/topic 性质给出)逐条验证:
- [ ] <场景 1,例如 T7: 切核重启后 input 不再重发已释放 TSFN>
- [ ] <场景 2,例如 T7: ArkTS 侧 hub 离页后 C++ 侧 listener 自动清理>
- [ ] ...
- [ ] napi-boundary-reviewer(若 fix 涉及 NAPI)verdict ≠ block
- [ ] audit-evaluator(若有)drift ≤ 20%
## 不在本次范围(显式 defer)
- <项 1: 理由 + defer 到哪个 audit>
- <项 2>
约束:
- 完成条件 MUST 是场景驱动,不是"checklist 填空"(memory
feedback_completeness_is_scenario_not_form)
- 场景由 topic 性质 + 项目 memory 共同决定;不要凭空发明
- DONE.md 一旦写定,Step 1 之后不许悄悄改——确实要改 scope 必须显式记录 "scope drift: <原因>"
State after step 0: AUDIT_DIR/DONE.md 存在,scope + checkbox 全部填写。
Step 1 — Audit dispatch
In: Step 0 产出 AUDIT_DIR/DONE.md(scope 边界已定)
Out: AUDIT_DIR/agent-<topic-id>.md × N(structured findings,机器可验)→ Step 2 逐条字节比对
Role: [L4 主 AI] 决定 topic + 写 prompt + dispatch; [L3 subagent] 并行 broad scan,structured output; [NOT] subagent 不判 verdict(留 Step 3 主 AI)
Done: [ ] N 个 agent 报告齐;[ ] 每条 finding 有 file:line + evidence_excerpt
Ask user which topic(s) (default: ask user to choose, do NOT auto-default
to all 8 — the audit is expensive). Create
docs/audit/audit-<YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS>/ directory; remember this path as
AUDIT_DIR.
For each chosen topic, dispatch ONE Sonnet agent (use Agent tool with
model: "sonnet" per [[feedback_subagent_model]] — never Haiku). Each
agent must:
- Write findings to
AUDIT_DIR/agent-<topic-id>.md
- Use this finding format (strict):
## F<N>: <one-line claim>
- severity: P0 | P1 | P2
- file: <relative path>
- line: <single line or N-M range>
- evidence_excerpt: |
<copy of the cited lines, verbatim, ≤8 lines>
- claim: <full explanation, why it's a bug, what should happen>
- suggested_fix: <one-paragraph repair shape; do NOT write the patch>
- Receive constraint: "DO NOT modify files. DO NOT run hvigorw / cmake.
DO NOT invent citations — only cite lines you actually Read."
- Hazards source: agent prompt 必须 包含一行
先 cat .claude/skills/closed-loop/topics/T<n>-<name>.md
指示——hazards 详情在 topic file 里,不再在主 prompt 里转述(主 prompt 短、agent 自取 hazards)。
- TOOL POLICY (MANDATORY): Using Grep to answer "who calls X / where is X defined /
what references X" is FORBIDDEN in this agent. For symbol/reference/caller lookup
you MUST use MCP tools:
mcp__cclsp__find_references | mcp__cclsp__find_definition |
mcp__cclsp__get_incoming_calls | mcp__serena__find_referencing_symbols |
mcp__cclsp__find_workspace_symbols.
Grep is allowed ONLY for non-symbol file-content text searches.
Dispatch ALL agents in PARALLEL (single message, multiple Agent tool calls).
State after step 1: AUDIT_DIR/agent-*.md exists (one per topic).
Step 2 — Citation verify (Read + grep, manual)
In: Step 1 产出 AUDIT_DIR/agent-*.md(每 topic structured findings)
Out: AUDIT_DIR/VERIFIED.md(分桶: VERIFIED / CITATION_DRIFT / FORMAT_ERROR / FILE_MISSING)→ Step 3 只 review VERIFIED 的
Role: [L4 主 AI] 逐条 Read file:line + grep evidence_excerpt 字节比对; [L1 机械] grep/Read 字节匹配; [NOT] 不判 finding 真伪(留 Step 3),不修代码
Done: [ ] 每条 finding 都有一个 verdict 桶;[ ] VERIFIED.md 表格生成
For each finding in each agent-<topic>.md:
Read the cited file at the cited line range.- Compare actual file content to
evidence_excerpt:
- VERIFIED — bytes match (allow trivial whitespace drift)
- CITATION_DRIFT — same code exists but ±N lines off
- FILE_MISSING — file path doesn't exist
- FORMAT_ERROR — agent's finding malformed
- Stamp each finding with the verdict in a new file
AUDIT_DIR/VERIFIED.md (table form, one row per finding).
This replaces carbon's scripts/audit-verify.mjs — keep it manual to
avoid scaffolding scripts before they prove their weight.
State after step 2: AUDIT_DIR/VERIFIED.md exists with VERIFIED count.
─── CHECKPOINT A (auto-pass unless user said "stop after each step") ───
Report counts: "X VERIFIED / Y CITATION_DRIFT / Z FORMAT_ERROR /
W FILE_MISSING across N topics." Do not pause unless user explicitly asked.
Step 3 — Main Claude core-review
In: Step 2 产出 AUDIT_DIR/VERIFIED.md(只看 VERIFIED 桶)
Out: AUDIT_DIR/CORE-REVIEW.md(每条 finding 配 verdict: REAL / REAL_LOWER / MITIGATED / DESIGN / FALSE_POSITIVE)+ Top-P0 提示给 user CHECKPOINT B
Role: [L4 主 AI] verdict 判定 + 严重度 calibration; [L2 MCP] 必用 cclsp/serena/ast-grep 看影响面 + web_search 验上游规则现状; [NOT] 不直接 grep 替代 LSP(MCP 静态文字不够,见 feedback_mcp_static_text_insufficient)
Done: [ ] 每条 VERIFIED finding 有 verdict;[ ] 用 MCP 验证过影响面;[ ] rule-based finding 已 web verify
For EACH finding stamped VERIFIED:
Read the cited file at the cited line range, plus ±20 lines
surrounding context. NEVER skip this — step 2 only proves the bytes
match, not that the agent's interpretation is correct.- Judge the finding's claim and assign a verdict:
REAL — confirmed bug at the cited severityREAL_LOWER — confirmed but severity overstated (specify the true severity)MITIGATED — code does the cited thing but upstream check makes it unreachableDESIGN — intentional, not a bugFALSE_POSITIVE — agent misread the code
- Append to
AUDIT_DIR/CORE-REVIEW.md:
## Agent <topic-id> — N VERIFIED
| # | Severity | Verdict | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | P0 | REAL | <one-line why it stands at this severity> |
| F2 | P0 | REAL_LOWER P1 | <one-line why severity is overstated> |
End with final tally: total REAL by severity + cross-agent calibration
notes (e.g., "T4 over-labels P0 on geometry resize").
Trust rule: do not treat any finding as REAL until its cited code
has been read in this step. Skipping the Read means trusting the
sub-agent verbatim — exactly the failure mode this workflow prevents.
LSP / AST 协同（2026-05-26 ECP2 加；总览见 root CLAUDE.md "MCP / Skill 工具决策树"）：
判 verdict 前 MUST 先用 MCP——Grep/Read 不是等效替代，不是 fallback：
mcp__cclsp__find_references / mcp__serena__find_referencing_symbols — 看 finding 影响面（多 caller 同问题 → severity 上调；单 caller → 可能 REAL_LOWER）mcp__cclsp__get_diagnostics_for_file — LSP 已知的 type/warning 可能直接判 FALSE_POSITIVE（LSP 不报警 = 编译器满意）mcp__ast-grep__find_code — 看 finding pattern 是否泛存在（譬如 finding 说 "F12 mmap 用错" → mmap( 模式扫，看是单点还是全项目通病）mcp__cclsp__get_hover — 看相关类型 / 函数签名，NAPI 边界改动尤其有用mcp__sequential-thinking__sequentialthinking — 罕见 finding 拿不准时多角度推理（不滥用）
用 Grep/Read 之前必须问自己：MCP 能回答这个问题吗？能 → 用 MCP；不能（如内容文本搜索）→ 再用 Grep。
Web verify 前置(2026-05-29 加):
判 verdict 之前,如果 finding 引用的是本地规则(CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / scanner pattern / memory rule),必跑 web verify 检查规则是否仍然代表上游官方现状:
1. 识别 finding 引用的规则出处
2. mcp__web-search__web_search "<framework> <feature> <year> best practice"
3. 对比:本地规则 vs 上游
- 一致 → 按 verdict 流程判
- 上游已演进 → verdict = FALSE_POSITIVE 或 REAL_LOWER + 加 meta-finding(本地规则需更新)
例外(可跳 verify):安全/正确性硬约束(mmap / 跨线程加锁) / 项目业务约定(LOG_DOMAIN / 路径 glob) / session 内 < 30 分钟刚下的决策。
详见 memory feedback_local_rule_may_lag_upstream。
State after step 3: AUDIT_DIR/CORE-REVIEW.md exists with verdict per finding.
─── CHECKPOINT B (MANDATORY HUMAN) ───
Surface the verdict table. Ask:
Found N REAL findings (M P0, K P1, L P2) + Q REAL_LOWER. Top P0:
- F1: <claim> @ <file:line>
- F2: ...
What to fix? [all REAL P0+P1 / specific list / discuss / skip fix step]
Wait for explicit user response. Do not proceed without it.
If user picks specific findings, write that list to AUDIT_DIR/FIX-PLAN.md
so step 4 has a stable to-do.
Step 4 — Main Claude fixes
In: Step 3 产出 AUDIT_DIR/CORE-REVIEW.md + user CHECKPOINT B 选定的 finding 列表(AUDIT_DIR/FIX-PLAN.md)
Out: 代码改动(working tree dirty)+ 改动文件清单 → Step 5 fix-verify agent 按此清单重审
Role: [L4 主 AI] 直接 Edit 修 REAL findings; [L3 napi-boundary-reviewer agent] 改 app/napi/** 前 MUST 先 dispatch(见 feedback_napi_reviewer_no_skip); [NOT] 不改 FALSE_POSITIVE / DESIGN finding
Done: [ ] 所有 user 选定 finding 都已 Edit;[ ] napi 改动已经过 napi-reviewer;[ ] working tree diff 可读
For each finding the user approved (per FIX-PLAN.md):
- Re-read the cited code + surrounding context to find the right place
for the bounds check / null guard / buffer release / state-machine guard.
- If the fix touches
entry/src/main/cpp/app/napi/**: BEFORE applying
the Edit, dispatch the napi-boundary-reviewer agent with the
proposed change description. Wait for its review. Apply only after
review passes (or document the override in CORE-REVIEW.md).
- Apply the fix via
Edit. Each fix must:
- Be minimal — don't refactor while fixing
- Be comment-traceable — add
// Audit F<N>: <one-line> near the new code
- Not change behavior for valid inputs — fixes are defensive
- Group fixes by file. Batch all fixes for one file into one Edit
sequence to minimize regressions.
Do not dispatch a generic "fix agent". Per the trust chain rationale,
main Claude is the implementer. The only sub-agent dispatch in step 4 is
the napi-boundary-reviewer pre-review, which is verification, not
implementation.
LSP 协同（2026-05-26 ECP2 加）：
每个 fix 前 MUST 先查 MCP——Grep/Read 不是等效替代：
mcp__cclsp__find_references — 看这个函数 / 类型在哪些其他地方被引用，fix 是否影响 caller 行为mcp__cclsp__get_incoming_calls — 调用链谁触发，理解 fix 的实际触发条件mcp__serena__get_diagnostics_for_file — fix 前后看 type warning 是否变化
用 Grep/Read 之前必须问自己：MCP 能回答这个问题吗？能 → 用 MCP；不能 → 再用 Grep。
NAPI 边界改动的 LSP 协同与 napi-boundary-reviewer agent 并行——agent 跑深度审；MCP 跑覆盖面。
State after step 4: uncommitted edits in the working tree, listed by
git diff --stat.
─── CHECKPOINT C (MANDATORY HUMAN) ───
Show user git diff --stat + (if C++ built) the build PASS/FAIL line. Ask:
N files changed (+X -Y). C++ build: <OK / FAIL>. Diff looks reasonable?
[continue to fix-verify / inspect specific file / revert specific fix]
Wait for response. Do not proceed without it.
Step 5 — Fix-verify agent dispatch
In: Step 4 产出代码改动 + AUDIT_DIR/FIX-PLAN.md 列出的 finding ID
Out: <FIXVERIFY_DIR>/agent-<topic>-fixverify.md(每条 fix 配 verdict: FIXED / PARTIAL / UNFIXED)→ Step 6 字节验证
Role: [L3 subagent per topic] 重审 fix 代码; [L2 MCP] subagent 必用 mcp__web-search__web_search 验 fix 引用的本地规则是否仍代表上游官方现状; [NOT] subagent 不找 NEW issues(constraint 强制),不修代码
Done: [ ] 每个受影响 topic 有一份 fixverify 报告;[ ] 每条原 finding 配 FIXED/PARTIAL/UNFIXED 之一;[ ] rule-based fix 已 web verify(skipped 要标 reason)
Create docs/audit/audit-<ORIGINAL_TS>-fixverify/ (suffix the original
audit dir's timestamp — aids correlation).
Dispatch ONE Sonnet agent per affected topic (usually just the topics
user picked findings from in step 3). Each agent's prompt MUST include:
- The list of original findings to re-check (read from
AUDIT_DIR/agent-<topic>.md)
- The strict finding format (same as step 1)
- Verdict field added:
verdict: FIXED | PARTIAL | UNFIXED
- New
citation must point at the fix code (where the new guard /
check / release lives), not the original buggy line
- Constraint: "DO NOT find NEW issues; only verify the listed originals"
- TOOL POLICY (MANDATORY): Same as audit agent — Grep for symbol/reference lookup
is FORBIDDEN. Use
mcp__cclsp__find_references | mcp__cclsp__find_definition |
mcp__serena__find_referencing_symbols for any caller/definition lookup.
- WEB VERIFY (2026-05-29 加): 若 fix 引用了本地规则(CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / memory /
scanner pattern)判 FIXED,必跑
mcp__web-search__web_search 验证规则仍代表
上游官方现状(见 memory feedback_local_rule_may_lag_upstream)。例外:
- 项目业务约定(LOG_DOMAIN / 路径 glob / EmuUiTokens)— 标
skipped: 业务约定
- 安全/正确性硬约束(mmap / 跨线程加锁)— 标
skipped: 上游契约稳定
- session 内 < 30 分钟刚下的决策 — 标
skipped: 无脱节窗口
未 verify 的 rule-based fix 不得判 FIXED;改判 PARTIAL: rule unverified。
- WEB VERIFY 证据字段(2026-05-29 加,机制 2): 在每条 finding 末尾必须加结构化字段:
web_verify:
status: verified-upstream | skipped | not-applicable
queries: ["<query 1>", "<query 2>"] # status=verified-upstream 时必填,≥1 query
reason: "<一句话说明 verify 结果或 skipped 理由>"
not-applicable: fix 未引用本地规则(纯字节修),不需 verifyskipped: 见上面 3 类例外,reason 必填verified-upstream: queries 必含至少 1 条 mcp__web-search__web_search 实跑的查询
主 AI Step 6 会扫所有 finding 必须含此字段;缺字段 = subagent 越权,要求重跑。
Output to <FIXVERIFY_DIR>/agent-<topic>-fixverify.md.
Step 6 — Citation verify on the fix-verify reports (Read + grep, manual)
In: Step 5 产出 fixverify 报告
Out: <FIXVERIFY_DIR>/FIX-VERIFY-SUMMARY.md(每条 fix 字节级验证 + 跨模型 calibration)→ Step 7 gate
Role: [L4 主 AI] Read fix 代码 + 比对 fixverify evidence_excerpt; [L4 主 AI] 对 Step 5 标 PARTIAL: rule unverified 的 fix 兜底跑 mcp__web-search__web_search; [L1 grep] 机制扫 finding 数 vs web_verify 块数(缺即 subagent 越权); [NOT] 不容忍 UNFIXED,不容忍 rule unverified 进 Step 7,不容忍 web_verify 字段缺失
Done: [ ] 每条 fix 验证字节是否落地;[ ] 0 条 UNFIXED;[ ] 0 条 rule unverified;[ ] 每条 finding 含 web_verify 字段(grep 验证)
Same procedure as step 2, but on the fix-verify reports. The fix code
must exist where the agent claims; a CITATION_DRIFT here often means
the agent's evidence_excerpt is the right code but the line range is
off-by-a-few — read the code yourself to confirm the fix is actually
correct (line-range drift ≠ fix failure).
Rule verify 兜底(2026-05-29 加): Step 5 subagent 标 PARTIAL: rule unverified
的 fix 在本步必须由主 AI 跑 mcp__web-search__web_search 兜底 verify:
- 若 verify 通过(本地规则仍代表上游)→ 升级为 FIXED
- 若 verify 发现规则过时 → 改为
META: rule outdated,加 meta-finding 进 FIX-VERIFY-SUMMARY.md
(该 finding 不算 fix 失败,但建议下次会话改本地修)
未兜底 verify 的 rule unverified 项不得放行进 Step 7 gate。
机制化 scan(2026-05-29 加,机制 2): 主 AI 必须扫每个 agent-<topic>-fixverify.md
报告里的每条 finding 是否含 web_verify: 结构化字段(Step 5 prompt 第 8 条要求的):
for f in <FIXVERIFY_DIR>/agent-*-fixverify.md; do
finding_count=$(grep -cE '^## F[0-9]+:' "$f")
verify_count=$(grep -cE '^\s+web_verify:' "$f")
if [[ $finding_count -ne $verify_count ]]; then
echo "[FAIL] $f: ${finding_count} findings but only ${verify_count} web_verify blocks — subagent 越权"
fi
done
此 scan 是机制兜底,不是纪律 — 缺字段强制重跑。
Cross-model verification(2026-05-28 加,可选):
P0 finding 或涉及线程/生命周期/NAPI 的 fix,强烈建议对 audit-evaluator 启用 cross-validate mode:
- 第一次 dispatch:
Agent(audit-evaluator, model=sonnet, MODE=cross-validate) — Phase A
- 第二次 dispatch:
Agent(audit-evaluator, model=opus, MODE=cross-validate-phase-b, PHASE_A_REPORT=<path>) — Phase B
漂移收敛规则:任一 Phase B DISAGREE_A → 取 Phase B 判定回 Step 4;UNCERTAIN → CHECKPOINT D。
参考 HN vibe42 实操 + Anthropic sycophancy 实证。
Step 7 — Gate gauntlet(含 C++ 增量 rebuild)
In: Step 6 产出 FIX-VERIFY-SUMMARY.md(0 UNFIXED)
Out: gate PASS 信号 + .last-quick-signals.txt 时间戳 → Step 8 stage+commit
Role: [L1 脚本] bash scripts/check/quick_signals.sh + 可选 hvigorw / cmake; [L4 主 AI] 解读 gate 输出 + 必要时回 Step 4 修问题
Done: [ ] regression / hygiene / ui-fixes / cxx-build 全 PASS;[ ] gate 输出时间戳已写入
2026-05-28 重构:原 Step 5 "Rebuild (if C++ changed)" 已合并进本步——
quick_signals.sh chain 内置 cmake --build(避免重复 rebuild step)。
如需在 quick_signals 之前单独验 C++ build(罕见,例如想看 build 详细错误而不是 quick_signals 简略输出),可手动跑:
ls entry/.cxx/*/*/*/build.ninja 2>/dev/null
cmake --build "entry/.cxx/<config>/<arch>/<abi>" --target libentry_static
否则直接进 Gate gauntlet。
bash scripts/check/quick_signals.sh
Quick signals chains: check_regression_guards.sh + check_repo_hygiene.sh
- incremental
cmake --build. All must be green. If any fails, fix that
first (loop back to step 4 — do not commit a half-fixed state).
If quick_signals reports SKIP for cmake --build because DevEco Sync
hasn't been run, run a full sync once via DevEco Studio UI, then re-run.
Done-criteria gate(2026-05-28 加):
打开 AUDIT_DIR/DONE.md,逐条 checkbox 自检:
- 全部勾上 → 通过
- 有未勾 → 要么补漏(回 Step 4)、要么显式升为 WONT_FIX(理由写进 DONE.md 同一条)
- 场景类未勾(场景没法在本环境验证)→ 标
[DEFER-MANUAL] + 写明用户/真机什么时候验
不许"checkbox 大部分勾上,凑合 commit"——feedback_completeness_is_scenario_not_form
的原话:完整不是形式美,是场景驱动。
─── CHECKPOINT D (MANDATORY HUMAN) ───
Draft the commit message:
<scope>: <one-line subject under 70 chars>
<body explaining WHY, not just WHAT. Reference the audit dir for traceability.>
Verification:
bash scripts/check/quick_signals.sh → PASS
audit fix-verify: X/X FIXED, all citations VERIFIED
napi-boundary-reviewer (if applicable): <verdict>
Audit artifacts:
docs/audit/<AUDIT_DIR_NAME>/ (original + CORE-REVIEW.md)
docs/audit/<FIXVERIFY_DIR_NAME>/ (fix verification)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Show user the full draft. Wait for "go" / "edit X" / "abort".
Step 8 — Stage + commit
In: Step 7 产出 gate PASS + 代码改动 + AUDIT_DIR
Out: git commit(commit message 含 audit dir 路径)→ HEAD 推进 1 个 commit
Role: [L1 git] git add / git commit; [L4 主 AI] 写 commit message + 经 user CHECKPOINT C 确认; [NOT] 不 push(用户决定)
Done: [ ] commit 已落地;[ ] commit message 引用 AUDIT_DIR 路径;[ ] working tree clean
Explicit file list, no git add -A. Only stage files YOU edited in
step 4 + the audit artifacts under docs/audit/. Files modified by the
user pre-session stay out unless explicitly approved.
git add <file1> <file2> ... docs/audit/<AUDIT_DIR_NAME>/
git status -s
git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF' ... EOF)"
git log --oneline -3
Report commit hash to user. Done.
State machine: resuming from a partial run
If the user comes back mid-flow and says "继续闭环" / "/closed-loop resume",
detect state via artifacts (no script — use ls docs/audit/*/):
Has AUDIT_DIR/DONE.md ?
├── no → step 0 not done, must write DONE.md first
└── yes → has AUDIT_DIR/agent-*.md ?
├── no → step 1 not done, resume step 1
└── yes → has AUDIT_DIR/VERIFIED.md ?
├── no → resume step 2 (citation-verify)
└── yes → has AUDIT_DIR/CORE-REVIEW.md ?
├── no → resume step 3 (core-review)
└── yes → has AUDIT_DIR/FIX-PLAN.md ?
├── no → resume CHECKPOINT B (ask user what to fix)
└── yes → git diff non-empty?
├── no → resume step 4 (fixing)
└── yes → has FIXVERIFY_DIR ?
├── no → resume step 5 (dispatch fix-verify agents)
└── yes → has FIXVERIFY_DIR/<reports> ?
├── no → resume step 5 (dispatch fix-verify agents)
└── yes → green gates ?
├── no → resume step 6-7 (citation-verify + gate)
└── yes → DONE.md checkbox 全勾?
├── no → 补漏 / 升 WONT_FIX + 理由 / 改 scope
└── yes → resume CHECKPOINT D (commit draft)
Pick the most recent timestamped dir as the "active" one if multiple exist.
Reference
- Fast signals gate:
scripts/check/quick_signals.sh
- NAPI sub-agent:
.claude/agents/napi-boundary-reviewer.md
- Regression / hygiene scripts:
scripts/ci/check_regression_guards.sh + check_repo_hygiene.sh
- Trust chain rationale: [[harness-fusion-2026-05-24]] /
docs/plans/2026-05-24-harness-fusion-design.md
- Sub-agent model floor (Sonnet min, no Haiku): [[feedback_subagent_model]]
- Worktree isolation caveat: [[feedback_agent_worktree_isolation]]
- Hook stdin lesson: post-edit-cpp.sh history (heredoc + json.load conflict)
- 审计经验教训(必读): [[feedback_t7_audit_lessons]] — 5 条:
find_references 是审计核心(Step 3 verdict 前必跑)- SDK 限制用构建验证(Step 7 gate cxx-build),不靠记忆
- 跨层耦合 finding 必须同批修(Step 4 FIX-PLAN 一起)
- catch 块禁止 removeListener/unsubscribe(订阅生命周期反模式)
- NAPI 层独立批次 + napi-boundary-reviewer 预审(Step 4 改
app/napi/** 时)
Anti-patterns to refuse
If user pushes for any of these, refuse and explain why:
-
"Skip core-review, just fix what the agent said" — exact failure
mode this workflow exists to prevent. Sub-agent claims are unverified
until step 3.
-
"Auto-commit without showing me the diff" — CHECKPOINT C exists
because fixes can look right in code but still subtly break behavior.
-
"Dispatch a fix agent for each finding" — adds a new trust layer
without a verifier. Main Claude is the implementer, by design.
-
"Run all 8 steps no checkpoints" — checkpoints B/C/D exist for
decision authority. Removing them gives Claude autonomy that isn't
earned yet on this codebase.
-
"Fix the warnings I just noticed while you're in there" — scope
creep. Each finding gets a minimal fix; off-scope cleanup goes in a
separate commit.
-
"Skip the napi-boundary-reviewer for this one NAPI fix" — NAPI
edits have hidden env / thread / ref-lifetime hazards that the
reviewer agent is specifically tuned to catch.
-
"Skip Step 0 because 'we know what we're auditing'" — Step 0 是
sprint contract,memory feedback_completeness_is_scenario_not_form 反复
踩过这个坑。开工不写 done criteria 等于让 fix scope 飘。3 分钟写 DONE.md
比 fix 完反复追问 "审完了吗" 省时间。
What this skill does NOT cover
- ets/ets-only fixes — different workflow (or use
auto-commit-cicd
after manual review).
- Vendored libretro upstream code —
entry/src/main/cpp/core/libretro/
is blocked by guard-vendored-libretro.sh; patches must go upstream.
- PR creation / pushing to remote — stop at local commit; user
decides when to push.
