梳理近期 Light 修补工作。先收集数据：git 提交历史、任务分支状态、遗留问题线索。

我来梳理近期 Light 修补工作。先收集数据：git 提交历史、任务分支状态、遗留问题线索。

The user wants me to summarize the recent Light language repair tasks – problem severity, difficulty, time spent, and make it easy to see recent work. Also check if there are remaining unresolved complex problems.

Let me gather data. I have memory context from previous sessions. Let me check:

Let me first do a memory pass and check git log to understand the recent work timeline.

From the summary and memory, I know:

• Recent session 2026-09-03: 6 sub-tasks complete, then 29 test failures analyzed, split into 5 parallel tasks (T1-T5), all fixed, verified (250 passed, 4 skipped), committed and pushed to 4 remotes.
• Also fixed the pre-existing assert quality issue (fake-green assertions).

But the user asks to “总结近期light的修补任务情况” – summarize recent Light repair tasks, with severity, difficulty, time spent, and check remaining complex problems.

I should look at:

Let me gather this data efficiently. Let me check git log over the recent period, and also look for any TODO/遗留 issues.

Let me look at the git log with dates to reconstruct the timeline. Also check what the 6 sub-tasks were (from summary: 12 defects L-049 to L-065 fixed, large file cleanup, project upgrade plan). And the 5 parallel tasks (T1-T5).

Let me also check for remaining issues – the memory says “POSIX 分支…未在 POSIX 系统实测” as a lesson learned. That’s a remaining risk.

Let me gather info in parallel:

Let me start.

git log 输出较大被截断，读取完整日志，并查看记忆中的任务总结。

Let me get the full git log since the output was truncated. Let me read the persisted output file, and also check the memory topics for the task summaries. Let me also look at the earlier commits to understand the whole picture.

Let me read the persisted log output and the memory topics file.

commit 历史很全。现在查记忆中的任务总结、known_issues 文档和第十轮任务书，梳理缺陷清单与遗留问题。

This is a huge commit history. The user wants a summary of recent Light repair tasks: severity, difficulty, time spent, and a view of the overall work. Plus check remaining unresolved complex problems.

Let me focus on the recent period. The user says “近期” (recent). Let me focus on the last few days (2026-08-27 onwards seems to be the “第十轮” – 10th round, which is the compiler defect repair round L-001 to L-065). Actually, looking at the memory, the recent sessions were about:

The recent work centers on the “第十轮” (10th round) — compiler defect fixes L-001 through L-065. Let me look at the memory topics to understand what the 6 sub-tasks were.

Let me check the memory topics file from 20260903 and also look for earlier topics. The recent topic summary mentioned:

• 6 个子任务全部完成后出现29个测试失败
• 拆分为 5 个可并行任务 T1-T5

Let me look at the memory to find the 6 sub-tasks description and the defect list L-049 to L-065.

Let me also check the known_issues documentation to identify remaining complex problems.

Let me read:

Let me search for these.

There are many topics.md files. Let me read the most relevant ones for the recent repair task summary. The “第十轮” (10th round) work started around 2026-08-27 (L1/L2/L3 compiler defect fixes) and the recent sessions (2026-09-01 to 09-03) covered L-001 to L-065 fixes.

Let me read the recent topics files (20260901, 20260902, 20260903) and also the known_issues doc to identify remaining issues.

Let me read:

Let me search for the known_issues file and read the recent topics in parallel.

I have a good understanding now. Let me find the “语言缺陷账.md” (language defect ledger) in the lightharness project and the known_issues doc. Wait, the memory mentions two projects: light-merge (g:\\dswork\\duan-light-merge\\light-merge) and lightharness. The memory topics reference “lightharness” project work but the current working directory is light-merge.

Hmm, actually the memory topics for 20260901/0902 mention “lightharness” project. But the current working directory is g:\\dswork\\duan-light-merge\\light-merge. Let me check – maybe there are two repos, or the memory is about the same project. The user profile mentions project_memory about task D (进程树.light etc.) which is in light-merge.

Actually wait – looking more carefully, the memory topics reference “lightharness” with files like “src/语言服务器.light”, “对标清单.json”, “语言缺陷账.md”. But the current project light-merge has “语言缺陷账.md”? Let me check. The rg output above searched docs/ and didn’t find 语言缺陷账.md. Let me search for it in the whole repo.

Actually, the memory is confusing because it seems to mix two projects. The current task is about “近期light的修补任务情况” – recent Light repair tasks. Given the context (the conversation has been about light-merge repo, the 29 test failures, L-049 to L-065 defects), I should focus on the light-merge repo’s recent repair work.

Let me clarify the scope. The most relevant recent work:

The user wants:

Let me find the language defect ledger (语言缺陷账.md) to get the L-001 to L-065 defect list. Let me search for it. Also find known_issues doc.

Let me search in both light-merge and possibly a lightharness directory.

找到了第十轮任务书和 known_issues。读取这两份关键文档。

The light-merge repo has:

• 任务书/第十轮总纲.md (10th round task book)
• 任务书/编译器缺陷验收判据_移交_第10轮.md (defect acceptance criteria)
• 任务书/任务T10_*.md
• docs/known_issues.md

The “语言缺陷账.md” is in a different project (lightharness, which doesn’t exist in g:\\dswork directly — only duan-light-merge). Wait, the memory topics mention lightharness but the directories under dswork are AICity, duan-light-merge, _posix_verify. So “lightharness” in memory might actually refer to the same light-merge repo or a subdirectory. Actually, looking at the git remotes, there’s “myrepo” in the memory but the light-merge has gitea/github/gitcode. These memory topics might be from a different project that shares the memory folder (the folder name is -g-dswork-duan-light-merge–p2-ac66d8c94943502aa38a).

Hmm, this is getting complicated. Let me focus on what’s directly relevant: the light-merge repo’s recent repair work. Let me read:

Let me read both. Also let me check the 编译器缺陷验收判据 file for the defect list.

第十轮总纲已读。现在读 known_issues.md 看遗留问题清单，并确认 lightharness 仓库位置。

This is the 10th round task book. Now let me read docs/known_issues.md to check remaining unresolved issues. This file might be large. Let me check its size and read it.

Also, I need to understand what the recent repair tasks actually were. The commit history shows:

• 2026-08-27: 第十轮 started – L1/L2/L3 (词法/代码生成/导入模块层) defects L-001 to L-016
• 2026-08-31 to 09-01: 包⑤⑥⑦ (lexer/parser/codegen) L-017 to L-045 fixes
• 2026-09-01: 复刻缺口清零 (L-041/L-053/L-059/L-060/L-063 etc.)
• 2026-09-02: lightharness 任务 L/M/N (语言服务器/推理工具) with L-053/L-054 new defects
• 2026-09-03: 6 子任务 (L-049 to L-065), then 29 test failures fix, then 假绿断言 fix

Wait, the memory topics and 总纲 mention “lightharness” as a separate repo at g:\\dswork\\duan-light-merge\\lightharness. But ls of g:\\dswork showed only AICity, duan-light-merge, _posix_verify. So lightharness might be inside duan-light-merge? Let me check. Actually the folder list from Get-ChildItem g:\\dswork -Directory showed: AICity, duan-light-merge, _posix_verify. So no lightharness at top level. Let me check inside duan-light-merge.

Actually, let me not go too deep. The user’s question is about “近期light的修补任务情况” – recent Light repair tasks. Given the conversation context has been entirely in light-merge, and the summary mentions L-049 to L-065 fixes, I should summarize the recent repair work in light-merge.

Let me check the known_issues.md to identify remaining unresolved complex problems. Let me read it (check size first).

There is a lightharness directory. And known_issues.md is 549 lines. Let me read the known_issues.md to understand the remaining unresolved issues. Let me read it.

数据基本齐全。再看一下 lightharness 的语言缺陷账，确认近期 L-049~L-065 缺陷的详细信息。

Now I have a comprehensive view. Let me organize the information:

Let me now count/verify the actual defect numbers. The commit history shows L-001 through L-065. Let me verify by checking 语言缺陷账.md in lightharness or the light-merge docs. Actually, the memory says “12条新发现缺陷和2条遗留缺陷” per package ⑤→⑥→⑦→⑧ and “L-049至L-065中12个缺陷修复”.

Let me tally the L-* defects mentioned in commits:

• 2026-08-27: L-001 to L-016 (L1: L-002/L-004/L-010/L-011/L-012/L-015; L2: L-003/L-005/L-006/L-008/L-014/L-016; L3: L-001)
• 2026-08-31/09-01: 包⑤⑥⑦: L-013, L-017~L-045
• 2026-09-01: L-041/L-053/L-059/L-060/L-063 etc.
• 2026-09-02: L-053, L-054 (lightharness)
• 2026-09-03: L-049 to L-065 (6 子任务)

The user asks for:

Now let me think about the format. The user wants “让人一目了然，可以看到近期的工作情况” – something visual that makes it easy to see. This is a good candidate for an Inline Visual (PureShowWidget) – a summary table/chart showing the repair tasks.

The dynamic-ui skill is available. The guidance says for data comparison/visualization, use Inline Visuals. The user wants a summary that’s “一目了然” (clear at a glance) showing recent work – severity, difficulty, time spent. This is a data visualization request.

Let me load the dynamic-ui skill first to get the design guidance, then create a visual summary.

Actually, let me first gather the remaining data I need:

Let me check the lightharness 语言缺陷账.md and the light-merge docs for the recent defects. Actually, the recent 6 子任务 were about L-049 to L-065. Let me find where these are documented. The memory summary says “语言缺陷修复：完成L-049至L-065中12个缺陷修复，包括as绑定、中文变量名、多行字面量缩进等”.

Let me search for the 语言缺陷账 in lightharness.

Actually, I have enough to construct a good summary. But let me get a bit more detail on:

Let me check the 语言缺陷账.md file to get details on the recent defects. Let me look in lightharness.

The 语言缺陷账.md is in lightharness. Let me read the relevant portion about L-049 to L-065. Let me check the file size first and read the recent entries.

信息收集完毕。现在加载可视化技能，用一目了然的图表呈现近期修补工作总结。

Now I have a very comprehensive picture. Let me organize the data:

The recent repair work (2026-08-27 to 2026-09-03) is the 10th round (第十轮"清账轮"). Let me categorize the defects L-001 to L-065.

From the defect ledger, the recent defects (L-049 to L-065) fixed on 2026-09-03 (the 6 sub-tasks):

• L-049: 捕获 错误 as 变量 绑定子句不支持 (parser) – 高
• L-050: 捕获异常变量名必须单字母ASCII（中文名不可用）(parser) – 中 (其实是已修复，登记核对)
• L-051: 多行字典/列表字面量破坏后续块缩进 (lexer) – 高 (复杂，bracket_stack)
• L-052: 字符串字面量含 {标识符} 被当插值 (parser_expr) – 中
• L-053: 己 不能作普通变量名 (code_generator) – 中
• L-054: 嵌套字面量实参含 \\n 破坏缩进 (parser) – 高 (复杂，仍无修复，登记了绕法) – 待确认
• L-055: 写 f(x) 实参被丢弃；写要求字符串 (code_generator) – 中高
• L-056: 标识符含 等待 被拆出 await (lexer) – 高
• L-057: 类方法内调用函数值静默返回函数对象 (codegen) – 高 (由 L-014 家族连带解决)
• L-058: inline-if 同 line 变量赋值静默不执行 (parser) – 中高
• L-059: 空 映射到 None 而非 “” – 确认是设计特性，非缺陷
• L-060: 终/函数 保留字误作变量报错 (parser_expr) – 中
• L-061: 运行时顶层异常格式化器错乱 (enhanced_errors) – 高 (复杂，3层根因)
• L-062: 副本 只接受字典 (builtins) – 中
• L-063: 字典字面量裸键被当表达式 (code_generator) – 中
• L-064: 长段落缩进归零 (parser_stmt, max_statements=100) – 高
• L-065: 从 X 导入 Y 快照语义 – 文档补充，非代码缺陷

Wait, L-054 doesn’t show “已修复” – let me re-read. L-054’s 修复 column is empty. Let me check… Actually the L-054 row shows only 绕法 (workaround) but the 修复 column appears empty. Hmm, but the summary said “L-049至L-065中12个缺陷修复”. Let me count which are actually marked 已修复:

• L-049: 已修复
• L-050: 已修复（登记核对）
• L-051: 已修复
• L-052: 已修复
• L-053: 已修复
• L-054: NOT marked 已修复 (empty fix column) – 遗留!
• L-055: 已修复
• L-056: 已修复
• L-057: 已修复
• L-058: 已修复
• L-059: 确认为设计特性（非缺陷）
• L-060: 已修复
• L-061: 已修复
• L-062: 已修复
• L-063: 已修复
• L-064: 已修复
• L-065: 文档已补充（语义不变）

So L-054 is NOT fixed – it’s a remaining issue with a workaround (chr(10) concatenation). That’s an important finding for the “遗留问题” part of the user’s question!

Wait, let me double check L-054. The row:
“L-054 | 函数调用实参的嵌套字典/列表字面量内字符串含 \\n 转义… | 模块 #63 … | 需在函数调用实参里写含换行的字符串时，用 chr(10) 或预置变量拼接… |”

The columns are: # | 缺陷 | 现状/绕法 | 本轮处置计划 | 修复 | 反跑判据

Looking at L-049’s format: | **已修复（2026-09-03）**：… comes in the 5th column. For L-054, the 5th column (修复) is empty – it goes straight to 反跑判据? No wait, actually looking carefully at the structure, L-054 row ends with the 绕法 text and then… hmm. Let me re-read L-054:

“| L-054 | 函数调用实参的嵌套字典/列表字面量内字符串含 \\n 转义，会把该语句之后的同级语句降级为模块级代码——… | 模块 #63 test_语言服务器.light … | 需在函数调用实参里写含换行的字符串时，用 chr(10) 或预置变量拼接，避免在嵌套字面量内直接书写 \\n 转义；单层字符串字面量的 \\n 可安全使用。 |”

So L-054 has 4 fields filled (up to 绕法) but no 修复 field. This means L-054 is NOT fixed. This is a remaining defect! The summary mentioned “12个缺陷修复” – let me count fixed: L-049, L-050, L-051, L-052, L-053, L-055, L-056, L-057, L-058, L-060, L-061, L-062, L-063, L-064 = 14 fixed + L-059 (design) + L-065 (docs) + L-054 (not fixed).

Hmm, the memory summary said “完成L-049至L-065中12个缺陷修复”. Let me not worry about the exact count discrepancy – the key finding is L-054 remains unfixed.

Actually wait, let me reconsider. The L-054 entry might have been registered later and the fix might have happened in a different place. Let me verify by checking if there’s a test_L054.light or similar. Actually, the fix column is clearly empty, so L-054 is a remaining issue. This is exactly what the user wants to know (“查看是否还有遗留的、复杂的问题没有解决”).

Now let me also compile the earlier round of defects (L-001 to L-048) which were fixed in the same round:

• L-001: 跨目录点号导入 (L3, fixed 2026-08-27)
• L-002: 多行表达式/字面量续行 (L1, fixed)
• L-003: 类内成员空列表赋值误编译 (L2, fixed)
• L-004/L-007: 词法器按关键字边界拆分中文标识符 (L1, fixed – P0-A 词法确定性切词重构)
• L-005: 非 self 成员下标访问被编译成调用 (L2, fixed)
• L-006: 闭包内不能修改外层局部标量 (L2, fixed)
• L-008: JSON 序列化入口不统一 (L2, fixed/文档)
• L-009: 注释内嵌 导入 X 被文本替换误伤 (G10, fixed)
• L-010: 模块名/字段名首字符为关键字被拆 (L1, fixed)
• L-011: 关键字根 等待(await) 拆分成员访问 (L1, fixed)
• L-012: 成员访问整段标识符 (L1, fixed)
• L-013: 单行遍历/当循环级联吞语句 (fixed 08-30)
• L-014: 代码生成层 (L2, fixed)
• L-015: 模块名整段收集 (L1, fixed)
• L-016: 代码生成层 (L2, fixed)
• L-017~L-045: 包⑤⑥⑦⑧ (lexer/parser/codegen/builtins) fixed 08-31 to 09-01

And the 29 test failures → 5 parallel tasks (2026-09-03):

• T1: c_backend 24 failures – 旧式段落语法 – 难度低
• T2: “之” 关键字词法 2 failures – 中
• T3: 进程树孙进程竞态 1 failure – 高（复杂）
• T4: process_tree 编码假设 1 failure – 低
• T5: pty 编码假设 1 failure – 低

Then the 假绿断言 fix (2 assertions).

Time estimates: The user asks for “最终修补好耗费的时间等”. I have session timestamps:

• 2026-09-03 20:10 – 分析29失败，拆分5任务
• 2026-09-03 20:33 – 确认5任务完成，合并提交推送
  So the 5 parallel tasks took ~20-25 minutes.

The L-049~L-065 defects were fixed across 2026-09-03 (the 6 sub-tasks session).

I should be careful about time estimates. The guidance says avoid giving time estimates for how long tasks will take, but the user explicitly asks for “修补好耗费的时间” (time spent fixing) – this is asking for actual recorded time spent, which I can report from session data. I have some timestamps. Let me use the session timestamps I have.

Now, for the “遗留的、复杂的问题” (remaining complex problems):

Wait, the 进程树.light was heavily modified in T3. Let me check if #L5 (溢出文件绝对路径) was fixed. The known_issues §17.3 says 排期第九轮 D9 S1: 进程树.light:248 改回显 basename. Let me check if that was done. Actually, I should verify the current state of 进程树.light around that line. But the T3 changes were about job objects and killing. Let me not go too deep – I can note it as “排期中/需确认” or check.

Also from the recent conversation, the C9/G9 round (第九轮) did a lot. Let me check whether the 第九轮 items (POSIX TLS, 溢出文件路径, light build –target native, 影子数, 原生腿产品清单) were completed. The 第十轮总纲 was drafted 2026-08-27 and lists 已归属第九轮的项 as 备查. Since we’re now past 第九轮 (which merged 2026-08-24 to 08-25), some may have been done.

Actually, let me focus. The user wants:

I have enough data. Let me now decide on the presentation. The user wants “让人一目了然” – a clear visual. I should use the dynamic-ui skill to create an inline visual (summary dashboard).

Let me load the dynamic-ui skill first to get design guidance.

Actually, let me reconsider scope. The user asked to “总结近期light的修补任务情况” – the recent repair tasks. The most recent work is:

But “近期” could also include the whole 第十轮 (L-001~L-065). Given the git log shows the whole round was 2026-08-27 to 09-03, and the user wants to see “近期的工作情况”, I’ll cover the 第十轮 repair effort (the last ~8 days) with focus on the most recent sub-batch (L-049~L-065 + 29 failures + 假绿).

Let me structure:

Let me load the dynamic-ui skill to build a proper visual. I need to invoke the Skill tool with dynamic-ui.

Actually wait – let me reconsider whether to use PureShowWidget. The user said “总结…让人一目了然，可以看到近期的工作情况” and “查看是否还有遗留的、复杂的问题没有解决”. This is asking for a summary + analysis. An inline visual (chart/dashboard) would be very appropriate here per the Inline Visuals guidance (“Data shape — show me the data where a chart is clearer than prose”).

Let me load the dynamic-ui skill.

I need to route to the data-visualization scene. Let me read the relevant scene file and the visual tokens. Given the user wants a summary of repair tasks with severity/difficulty/time and remaining issues, this is a data visualization / comparison task.

Let me read the data-visualization scene and visual tokens.

Now I have the design tokens. Let me check the templates manifest to see if there’s a suitable template. The user wants:

This is more of a comparison/decision + data visualization hybrid. Let me check the manifest for comparison-cards or compact-table-visual options.

Actually, given the data structure (a table of defects with severity/difficulty/status + a list of remaining issues), a compact table visual with status tags + a summary strip might be the best. Let me check the templates manifest.

设计 tokens 和模板清单已了解。先快速核实几个遗留问题的当前状态（溢出路径泄漏、lightc 崩溃），确保总结准确。

No ready template matches a “repair task summary” directly. The closest would be comparison-cards (comparison-and-decision scene) for option trade-offs, but my data is more of a tabular summary of defects.

Given the data:

• 16 defects L-049~L-065 (14 fixed, 1 design-confirmed, 1 doc-only, 1 pending L-054)
• 29 test failures → 5 tasks
• 假绿断言

The best approach here is a compact table visual (fallback primitive compact-table-visual) showing:

Actually, per the complexity budget, I should be careful. This is a lot of content. Let me design a compact dashboard-like widget:

Focal point: The recent repair effort (第十轮清账轮 08-27~09-03) – 65 language defects L-001~L-065, with the most recent batch L-049~L-065.

Structure:

Wait, but there’s a lot of text. The chart should be chart-only with conclusions in text. But the user wants a summary that makes recent work “一目了然”. A compact table visual with status tags is ideal.

Given the amount of data, let me be strategic. The table of 16 defects is too many rows for a compact widget. Let me group:

• Summary metric strip: 周期、修复缺陷数、测试修复数、新增回归测试数
• A compact table for the recent batch (L-049~L-065): I could show all 17 rows but compactly. Actually the complexity budget says for 5+ items group/split. 17 rows in a table is fine for a compact-table-visual if rows are short.

Let me design:

• Metric strip: 4 metrics
• Table 1: 最近一批 L-049~L-065 (17 条) – columns: 编号, 问题概要, 严重度, 难度, 状态
• Table 2: 29 失败 → 5 任务 (5 rows) – columns: 任务, 失败数, 根因, 难度
• 遗留问题 panel: list of remaining issues with status tags

Actually this might be too much for one widget. Let me focus on ONE widget with:

And put the 29-failure→5-task info and remaining-issues details in the text response.

Hmm, but the user explicitly wants both the repair summary AND the remaining issues check. Let me do:

• Widget 1 (primary): 近期修补工作总结 dashboard – metric strip + defect table + 5-task mini table
• Text: analysis + remaining issues list

Actually per the skill, “Use one widget with multiple visual blocks when one chart would hide a second question”. So one widget with:

That’s 4 blocks, which might exceed “2-3 visual blocks total”. Let me consolidate:

• Block A: metric strip (3-4 KPIs)
• Block B: defect table (L-049~L-065, grouped/short)
• Block C: remaining issues (tagged list)

The 5-task info can go into the text response or a compact row within block B. Actually, let me integrate the “29 failures → 5 tasks” as a compact strip/row since it’s part of recent work.

Let me reconsider. The focal point should be: 第十轮清账轮已完成大部分语言缺陷，仅 L-054 与若干原生腿/P0 项遗留.

Design decision: compact-table-visual as the primary primitive.

Let me structure the widget:

Header: 近期光明修补工作总结（2026-08-27 ~ 09-03，第十轮清账轮）

Metric strip (4 KPIs):

• 周期 8 天 (08-27~09-03)
• 语言缺陷修复 64/65 (L-001~L-065)
• 测试失败修复 29 (4 文件 → 5 任务)
• 回归测试 250 passed + 10 passed

Hmm, the 65 defects: L-001 to L-065. How many are actually “fixed”? Let me count from commits:

• L-001~L-016: fixed in L1/L2/L3 (08-27)
• L-017~L-045: fixed 包⑤⑥⑦ (08-31~09-01)
• L-046~L-048: need to verify
• L-049~L-058, L-060~L-064: fixed (09-03)
• L-059: design-confirmed
• L-065: doc-only
• L-054: pending

So “64/65 修复或处置，L-054 遗留”. Actually L-059 was “确认为设计特性” and L-065 was “文档已补充” – both are “closed” in a sense (not code bugs). So truly remaining is L-054.

But I’m not 100% sure about L-046~L-048. Let me not claim exact “64/65”. Let me be honest and say the recent batch is what I’m certain about. Let me focus the widget on what I verified (L-049~L-065, the 29 failures, the 假绿).

Actually, I have solid data for L-049~L-065 (17 defects from the ledger). Let me count status:

• 已修复: L-049, L-050, L-051, L-052, L-053, L-055, L-056, L-057, L-058, L-060, L-061, L-062, L-063, L-064 = 14
• 确认设计特性: L-059 = 1
• 文档补充: L-065 = 1
• 未修复 (绕法): L-054 = 1

Total 17. So 16/17 已处置（14 修复 + 2 非代码处置），L-054 遗留。

Severity classification (主观但基于描述):

• L-051 (多行字面量缩进破坏) – 高/复杂
• L-056 (等待 拆 await) – 高/复杂
• L-061 (异常格式化器错乱) – 高/复杂 (3层根因)
• L-064 (长段落缩进归零) – 高/复杂 (max_statements=100)
• L-054 (嵌套字面量 \\n 缩进) – 高/复杂 (未修)
• L-049 (as 绑定) – 中/简单
• L-050 (中文捕获变量) – 低/简单
• L-052 ({标识符} 插值) – 中/简单
• L-053 (己 变量) – 中/简单
• L-055 (写 f(x)) – 中/中
• L-057 (类方法函数值) – 中/中 (连带解决)
• L-058 (inline-if 赋值) – 中/中
• L-060 (终/函数 保留字) – 中/中
• L-062 (副本 列表) – 低/简单
• L-063 (裸键) – 中/简单
• L-059 (空=None) – 低/设计
• L-065 (导入快照) – 低/文档

Difficulty: 高(L-051/056/061/064/054), 中(049/052/055/057/058/060/063), 低(050/053/059/062/065)

For the 29 failures → 5 tasks:

• T1: c_backend 24 failures – 语法用例改造 – 低
• T2: “之” 词法 2 – 词法拆分逻辑 – 中
• T3: 进程树竞态 1 – Job Object + PID 枚举补杀 – 高 (最复杂)
• T4: 编码假设 1 – 动态探测 – 低
• T5: pty 编码 1 – 动态编码 – 低

Time: 从 session 时间戳:

• 20:10 分析拆分 → 20:33 确认完成合并推送，约 23 分钟完成 T1-T5（并行）
• L-049~L-065 修复: 在 2026-09-03 当天（6 子任务会话）
• 29 测试验证: 250 passed 跑了 ~3分47秒

The user asked for “最终修补好耗费的时间” – I can report the recorded session durations:

• 29 测试失败：拆分（分析）→ 5 任务并行修复 → 合并推送，同一天内完成（约 23 分钟完成确认阶段；5 个并行任务本身由各 agent 完成，会话跨度 20:10→20:33）
• L-049~L-065：2026-09-03 当天 6 子任务
• 假绿断言：一次性快速修复（本次会话 ~几分钟）

Actually, I should be careful about claiming precise durations I don’t have. I have session timestamps:

• 09-03 20:10 (分析拆分) → 20:33 (5任务完成确认) = 23 min for the 5-task batch
• The 假绿断言 fix: this session, quick

For L-049~L-065, I don’t have exact start/end times, but the 6 sub-tasks were all done 2026-09-03. I’ll estimate as “1 天” (session-based) and label as estimate.

Let me be honest: time estimates should be labeled as estimates. I’ll use session-recorded spans where available.

Now let me think about the widget design more concretely.

Widget: 近期修补工作总结 (compact-table-visual)

Layout:

• Header: title + period subtitle
• Metric strip: 4 compact KPIs (周期 8天 / 最近批 16/17 处置 / 29 测试失败清零 / 假绿 2 条清除)
• Table block 1: L-049~L-065 最近批缺陷（17 行，短行）
  • columns: 编号 | 问题概要 | 严重度 | 难度 | 状态
  • severity/difficulty as dot+label
  • status as tag (已修复/设计/文档/遗留)
• Table block 2: 29 失败 → 5 并行任务（5 行）
  • columns: 任务 | 失败数 | 根因 | 难度
• Remaining panel: 遗留问题（tagged list, c-warning/c-danger）

That’s a lot. The skill says max 2-3 visual blocks. Metric strip + 2 tables + remaining panel = 4 blocks. Let me merge: put the 5-task info as a compact section in the same card, and keep remaining issues in text. Or combine remaining into the widget as a focused panel since it’s the “focal point” (the user explicitly asked to check remaining problems).

Focal point = 遗留问题 (remaining issues). That’s what the user specifically asked to check. So I should make the remaining issues the emphasized block (c-warning/c-danger tags), with the repair summary as supporting.

Design:

The 5-task detail goes in text response.

Actually wait – I want to reconsider whether the widget should include the L-049~L-065 table at all, or whether the whole round (L-001~L-065) matters more. The user says “近期light的修补任务情况” – the recent period. The most recent work is 09-01~09-03 (L-041~L-065 + 29 failures + 假绿). But the round started 08-27. I’ll frame it as “第十轮清账轮（08-27~09-03）” with the recent batch highlighted.

For the table, showing all 17 rows of L-049~L-065 might be too dense. Let me compress:

• Show all 17 with very short descriptions (3-6 chars each). Actually that’s reasonable for a table.

Hmm, but 17 rows + 5 rows + metrics + remaining = very tall widget. Let me trim. Option: Show L-049~L-065 as a compact grouped table (severity column as colored dot, difficulty as dots ●○○, status as tag). Keep rows very short.

Alternatively, I can show only the severity/difficulty DISTRIBUTION (e.g., a small stacked bar by difficulty, or grouped counts) and keep the full table in text. But the user wants “一目了然看到近期工作情况” – seeing the individual tasks matters.

Let me do a two-part widget:

• Part 1 (primary): compact table of the recent batch L-049~L-065 with severity/difficulty/status columns (all 17 rows, short)
• Part 2 (supporting, focal): 遗留与未决问题 panel

And metric strip on top.

Actually, given the width constraints, 17 rows with 5 columns in a chat-width card is feasible if descriptions are short (4-8 chars).

Let me define the data rows (编号, 概要, 严重度, 难度, 状态):

L-049 | as 绑定子句 | 中 | 低 | 已修复
L-050 | 中文捕获变量 | 低 | 低 | 已修复
L-051 | 多行字面量缩进 | 高 | 高 | 已修复
L-052 | ${} 插值误判 | 中 | 低 | 已修复
L-053 | 己 变量保留字 | 中 | 低 | 已修复
L-054 | 嵌套字面量 \\n 缩进 | 高 | 高 | ⚠ 未修
L-055 | 写 f(x) 丢实参 | 中 | 中 | 已修复
L-056 | 等待 拆成 await | 高 | 高 | 已修复
L-057 | 类方法函数值 | 高 | 中 | 已修复
L-058 | inline-if 赋值失效 | 中 | 中 | 已修复
L-059 | 空=None 语义 | 低 | 低 | 设计特性
L-060 | 终/函数 保留字 | 中 | 中 | 已修复
L-061 | 异常归因错乱 | 高 | 高 | 已修复
L-062 | 副本 仅限字典 | 低 | 低 | 已修复
L-063 | 字典裸键 | 中 | 低 | 已修复
L-064 | 长段落缩进归零 | 高 | 高 | 已修复
L-065 | 导入快照语义 | 低 | 低 | 文档

Wait, L-057 severity: “类方法体内无法调用函数值（静默返回函数对象）” – this is severe (silent failure) but it was resolved by L-014 family as a byproduct. Difficulty: low-medium (no direct work needed). Let me mark 中/中 or 高/低. I’ll say 严重 高, 难度 低 (连带解决). Hmm, let me keep it 中 severity, 低 difficulty since it was fixed as a side effect.

Actually let me simplify severity into: 高/中/低. And difficulty into 高/中/低.

For the 29 failures → 5 tasks (supporting in text, or small table):
T1 | 24 | c_backend 旧式语法 | 低
T2 | 2 | 之 关键字词法 | 中
T3 | 1 | 进程树孙进程竞态 | 高
T4 | 1 | 编码假设 | 低
T5 | 1 | pty 解码 | 低

Remaining issues (focal panel):

That’s a lot. For the widget focal panel, I’ll list the top remaining items (the complex ones the user asked about) with tags. Let me pick the “复杂遗留” ones:

• L-054（本批唯一未修语言缺陷）
• 除以 双后端分叉（需裁决）
• stdout 编码（Windows ANSI vs UTF-8）
• cli/lightc.py 崩溃（无门禁）
• POSIX 原生 TLS stub
• P0 自举/LLVM 覆盖（v6.1）
• 溢出文件路径泄漏（排期中）

I’ll show these in the widget and give full detail in text.

Let me verify a few facts before finalizing:

Let me do these quick checks before building the widget.

核实完毕：溢出路径泄漏（§17.3）与 lightc 崩溃（§12.2）确认仍存在。数据齐全，现在生成总结信息图。

Key findings:

So the remaining issues are confirmed:

• L-054 (嵌套字面量 \\n 缩进) – 未修
• §15.1/R10-4 除以 双后端分叉 – 未修（需裁决）
• §15.2/R10-5 stdout 编码 – 未修
• R10-1 cli/lightc.py 崩溃 – 未修（无门禁）
• R10-2 内联 pass – 未修（潜伏）
• R10-3 原生腿拒绝文案无行号 – 未修
• §17.2 POSIX TLS stub – 未修（Windows-only）
• §17.3 溢出路径泄漏 – 未修
• P0 自举/LLVM 覆盖 – v6.1 计划
• P1 减法歧义/Windows路径/大项目性能 – v6.1/v6.2 计划
• §12.6 50 伪代码模块 – 未决

Now I have all the data. Let me build the widget.

Design plan (compact-table-visual fallback):

• Root: data-dynamic-ui-widget + data-template="compact-table-visual"
• Style with tokens at top
• Header: title “近期修补工作总结 · 第十轮清账轮” + subtitle “2026-08-27 ~ 09-03”
• Metric strip: 4 KPIs (处置缺陷 16/17 / 测试失败清零 29 / 假绿清除 2 / 新增回归 260)
• Table 1: 最近批语言缺陷 L-049~L-065 (17 rows): 编号 | 问题 | 严重度 | 难度 | 状态
• Focal panel: 遗留未决问题 (8 items) with severity tags – the focal point
• Script: none needed (static), unless interactive. Keep static for reliability.

Let me keep it all static HTML/CSS (no Chart.js needed – a table + tags is clearer). This avoids canvas/fallback complexity.

Colors:

• Severity: use semantic tokens (danger for 高, warning for 中, muted for 低) — but wait, the skill says semantic colors only for status/risk encoding. Severity IS a risk/status encoding here, so it’s justified. The user asked about “问题严重度” which is a risk variable. Good.
• Difficulty: use neutral dots (●○○) or chart-series. I’ll use ●○○ dots in muted/brand.
• Status: tags – 已修复 (success), 设计特性 (neutral), 文档 (neutral), 未修 (danger), 排期 (warning)

Actually, let me use:

• Severity column: tag with c-danger (高), c-warning (中), neutral (低)
• Difficulty: dots (●○○)
• Status: tag

Let me be careful with the table density. 17 rows. Descriptions should be very short (5-8 chars). Let me write concise summaries:

• L-049 as 绑定子句
• L-050 中文捕获变量
• L-051 多行字面量缩进
• L-052 ${} 插值误判
• L-053 己 保留字
• L-054 嵌套字面量 \\n（未修）
• L-055 写 f(x) 丢实参
• L-056 等待 拆成 await
• L-057 类方法函数值
• L-058 inline-if 赋值
• L-059 空=None 语义
• L-060 终/函数 保留字
• L-061 异常归因错乱
• L-062 副本 仅限字典
• L-063 字典裸键
• L-064 长段落缩进归零
• L-065 导入快照语义

For the 29 failure 5-task info, I’ll add a compact second table or fold into text. Given widget budget (2-3 blocks), let me include it as a compact block under the defect table:

Actually, let me structure the widget as:

That’s 4 blocks. The skill allows “one primary chart and 1-2 supporting visuals”. Metric strip counts as supporting. Let me combine the 5-task mini info INTO the remaining-issues panel area or make the widget taller but still compact.

Alternative: merge metric strip + 5-task as one header area. The metric strip can include “29 测试失败清零” as one KPI, and I skip the 5-task table in the widget (put in text). That keeps it to 3 blocks: metric strip, defect table, remaining issues.

Yes, let me do that:

And the 5-task breakdown + detailed remaining issues go in my text response.

Wait, but I should double check “周期 8 天” – 08-27 to 09-03 is 8 days inclusive. Yes.

“新增回归 260” – 250 (4 files) + 10 (L055 test) = 260. But there were also many more test additions across the round. Let me not overstate. I’ll use “回归 250+10” or just count 29清零. Let me use the metric strip:

• 周期: 8 天
• 最近批处置: 16/17 (L-049~L-065)
• 测试失败: 29 → 0
• 假绿断言: 2 → 0

Let me now also make the table compact. I’ll use a simple table layout with rows. Given 17 rows, each ~28px, that’s ~480px + headers. Plus metric strip + remaining panel. Total maybe 700-800px tall. That’s acceptable for a scrollable inline widget? The skill doesn’t cap widget height strictly but says keep compact. Hmm.

Let me reconsider – maybe split into TWO widgets? The skill says don’t emit sequential chart cards for one analytical question. But the user has two questions: (1) repair summary, (2) remaining issues. These could be one widget with the remaining as focal panel. Let me keep one widget but make rows tight (caption size).

Actually, to keep it manageable, I’ll group the defect table into the two most meaningful columns and use compact rows. 17 rows at ~26px = 442px. That’s fine.

Let me write the widget code now.

Structure:

<style>tokens + component css</style>
<div data-dynamic-ui-widget data-template="compact-table-visual">
<div class="widget">
<div class="head">
<div class="title">近期修补工作总结 · 第十轮清账轮</div>
<div class="subtitle">2026-08-27 ~ 2026-09-03 · light-merge</div>
</div>
<div class="metrics"> 4 metric cells </div>
<div class="block">
<div class="block-title">最近一批语言缺陷 L-049~L-065</div>
<table> 17 rows </table>
</div>
<div class="block focal">
<div class="block-title">遗留未决问题（复杂项）</div>
<ul> items with tags </ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Theme tokens: purple brand. Dark overrides.

Let me define compact CSS classes:

• .metrics: flex row of 4 cells, neutral surface, radius-card, border
• .metric-value: text-title strong metric font
• .metric-label: caption muted
• table: full width, row borders, caption font for cells, code font for 编号
• severity tag: pill with semantic text color + soft bg
• difficulty dots: ● (filled) ○ (empty)
• status tag: pill

Let me now write it. I need to keep body ≥14px, caption 12px OK for table.

Let me carefully construct the rows data:

编号 | 问题（极简） | 严重 | 难度 | 状态
L-049 | as 绑定子句 | 中 | 低 | 已修复
L-050 | 中文捕获变量 | 低 | 低 | 已修复
L-051 | 多行字面量缩进 | 高 | 高 | 已修复
L-052 | ${} 插值误判 | 中 | 低 | 已修复
L-053 | 己 作变量 | 中 | 低 | 已修复
L-054 | 嵌套字面量 \\n | 高 | 高 | 未修
L-055 | 写 f(x) 丢参 | 中 | 中 | 已修复
L-056 | 等待 拆 await | 高 | 高 | 已修复
L-057 | 类方法函数值 | 中 | 低 | 已修复
L-058 | inline-if 赋值 | 中 | 中 | 已修复
L-059 | 空=None 语义 | 低 | 低 | 设计
L-060 | 终/函数 保留字 | 中 | 中 | 已修复
L-061 | 异常归因错乱 | 高 | 高 | 已修复
L-062 | 副本 仅限字典 | 低 | 低 | 已修复
L-063 | 字典裸键 | 中 | 低 | 已修复
L-064 | 长段落缩进归零 | 高 | 高 | 已修复
L-065 | 导入快照语义 | 低 | 低 | 文档

Remaining issues (focal):

• L-054 嵌套字面量 \\n 缩进破坏 — 高 · 绕法 chr(10)
• 除以 双后端语义分叉（§15.1）— 高 · 需裁决
• 转译后端 stdout 编码（§15.2）— 中 · 未修
• cli/lightc.py 必崩（§12.2）— 中 · 无门禁
• 内联 pass 过度激进（§12.4）— 中 · 潜伏
• POSIX 原生 TLS stub（§17.2）— 高 · Windows-only
• 溢出文件路径泄漏（§17.3）— 中 · 排期
• 自举/LLVM stdlib 覆盖（P0）— 高 · v6.1

That’s 8 items. Good.

Now the loading messages (1-4, ~5 words each, playful, Chinese).

Let me write the widget code. I’ll compute a clean layout. This is HTML table based, no SVG, so simpler.

For the difficulty dots: I’ll use 3 dots ●●○ etc. High=●●●, 中=●●○, 低=●○○. Neutral color for filled = text, empty = border.

For severity pill: 高=c-danger text, 中=c-warning text, 低=text-muted. Use soft backgrounds via color-mix.

Let me write the CSS carefully with tokens.

One concern: the table has 17 rows – to keep it compact and readable, I’ll use caption font (12px) for table cells. Body text minimum is 14px but caption 12px is allowed for table secondary text. The skill says body ≥14px, never below 11px; caption is 12px which is fine for table cells.

Let me write it now.

For the metric strip, 4 KPIs:

Focal point: the remaining issues panel is the focal (user explicitly asked). I’ll give it a warning/danger accent and place it prominently.

Actually, re-reading the guidance: “Chart widgets should stay chart-only … Do not place insight, conclusion, recommendation, or analysis text above or below the chart; put that wording in the assistant’s surrounding response.” The remaining issues panel is data (a list), which is fine as a table/list block – it’s evidence, not analysis. Good.

Let me write the widget.

The user wants me to summarize the recent Light patching tasks: issue severity, difficulty, time spent, etc., in a way that’s clear at a glance. Also check if there are remaining complex issues unresolved.

Let me gather the data first. I should:

Let me start by gathering information. I’ll do a quick memory pass too, but the summary already gives me a lot. Let me check git log and the defect ledger.

Let me run some commands in parallel:

• git log in light-merge
• Read the known_issues.md
• Grep the 语言缺陷账.md for relevant info

Let me be efficient. I’ll gather git history first.

Let me gather more data. I need to look at:

Let me look at the language defect ledger to understand the L-049 to L-065 status, and check recent commit dates to estimate time spent.

Let me first check the git log with dates more precisely, and read the language defect ledger sections. The ledger is large (89KB), so I need to read specific portions. Let me grep for the relevant L-numbers.

Let me also look at the benchmark report for timing data.

Let me do parallel operations:

Actually the git log I got shows dates. The commits from 08-31 to 09-03 are the recent patch work. Let me get a clearer picture of commit timing.

Let me grep the defect ledger for the L-numbers mentioned in the summary.

The head command isn’t available in PowerShell. Let me use Select-Object instead. Let me grep the defect ledger for the relevant L-numbers.

Now I have detailed info on L-049 to L-065. Let me get the full picture. I have:

• L-049: 已修复 2026-09-03 (as 绑定)
• L-050: 已修复 2026-09-03 (中文捕获变量名)
• L-051: 已修复 2026-09-03 (多行字面量缩进)
• L-052: 已修复 2026-09-03 (字符串插值)
• L-053: 已修复 2026-09-03 (己 self 引用)
• L-054: 未修复 (嵌套字面量内 \\n 破坏缩进) — 仅绕法
• L-055: 已修复 2026-09-03 (写 f(x) 实参丢弃)
• L-056: 已修复 2026-09-03 (等待 关键字边界)
• L-057: 已修复 2026-09-03 (类方法内函数值调用)
• L-058: 已修复 2026-09-03 (inline-if 赋值静默不执行)
• L-059: 确认为设计特性，非缺陷 (空 = None)
• L-060: 已修复 2026-09-03 (终/函数 保留字)
• L-061: 已修复 2026-09-03 (异常格式化器错乱)
• L-062: 已修复 2026-09-03 (副本 只接受字典)
• L-063: 已修复 2026-09-03 (字典裸键)
• L-064: 已修复 2026-09-03 (长段落缩进归零)
• L-065: 文档补充 2026-09-03 (导入快照语义) — 设计特性，文档化

Wait, that’s 17 total in L-049 to L-065 range. But the summary said “16个已修复（含2处假绿断言优化），1个（L-054）未修复”. Let me count: L-049 through L-065 = 17 items. Fixed: L-049, 050, 051, 052, 053, 055, 056, 057, 058, 060, 061, 062, 063, 064 = 14 fixed. L-059 = confirmed design (not a defect). L-065 = doc supplement (design). L-054 = not fixed.

So: 14 actual code fixes + 2 design decisions (L-059, L-065) + 1 unfixed (L-054) = 17.

Also there were earlier patches in this period: L-021, L-013, L-033, L-024, L-022, L-023, L-032, L-026, L-028, L-038, L-039, L-025, L-031, L-043, L-037, L-044, L-045, L-036 etc. from 08-30 to 09-02.

Let me also check the 29 test failures fix from 09-03 and the process tree work.

Now, for the “time spent” part, I have commit timestamps. The L-049 to L-065 fixes were all done on 09-03 (commits at 16:47, 17:55, 18:21). But actual working sessions may span longer. Let me estimate based on commit timestamps.

Actually, let me think about the whole picture. The user wants a summary that is “at a glance” showing:

Let me also check the benchmark report to see the harness timing data that was mentioned in commits (p50/p95).

Let me also verify current test counts. Let me check if tests pass currently – maybe run a quick test to confirm the current state. Actually, that might be time-consuming. Let me focus on gathering existing data.

Let me check the 语言缺陷账.md structure to understand severity classification. Let me look at the header/legend of the file and the full list of L-001 to L-065 with status. Let me look at how the defects are classified (严重度). Let me read the first ~100 lines.

Actually I have enough from the grep. Let me look at the benchmark report for the harness timing (p50/p95) mentioned in commits, and check the current git status and test results.

Let me also verify what the “29 test failures” fix covered and what the current state is.

Let me check:

Let me also try to get severity info from the defect ledger. Let me grep for the 严重度/状态 summary table.

The benchmark data about p50/p95 is probably in a different location. The commits mention “更新评测报告耗时数据（重跑基准后的 p50/p95 与逐轮耗时）” — that’s about the harness evaluation report. Let me search the light-merge directory for the evaluation report.

Actually, let me not go too deep. The core deliverable is a summary with severity/difficulty/time. Let me focus on:

Let me get the remaining ledger structure – how many defects total, and the summary status. Let me read the file’s legend/header differently – it’s 89KB, and lines 1-65 are within 64KB? No, it failed because the selected content size exceeds 64KB. Wait, offset 0 limit 65 still exceeded 64KB? That’s odd — maybe the file has very long lines. Line 66-93 (the ones I grepped) are very long single lines. So the file has very long lines. Let me read with a small limit.

Actually, the grep gave me the exact content I need for L-049 to L-065. Let me get the overall count and the “严重度” legend. Let me grep for header structure and the full defect list status column.

Let me check the beginning of the file with a smaller limit, and also check the last section (近期处置统计 or similar).

The ledger has 80 lines, 66 of which contain 已修复/未修复/设计特性/待修/绕过/绕法. This is a big table. The summary of the previous session already established: L-049 to L-065 = 17 defects in this latest round; 16 resolved, 1 (L-054) not resolved.

Let me now check the 29 test failures fix, and verify the current state. Let me also check the current test suite status quickly. Actually, let me check whether the process tree work (第九轮 M23, wt-D work tree) is relevant. The project memory mentions wt-D working tree with 进程树.light, 事件总线.light, 插件.light tasks. Those are separate from the light-merge repo.

The user’s current query: “总结近期light的修补任务情况，比如问题严重度、修补难易度，最终修补好耗费的时间等，让人一目了然，可以看到近期的工作情况！查看是否还有遗留的、复杂的问题没有解决!”

So I need to produce a clear summary. This is a great use case for the dynamic-ui skill (Inline Visuals) — a dashboard-like summary with severity, difficulty, time, and remaining issues. The user explicitly wants “一目了然” (at a glance).

Let me gather remaining data:

Let me estimate the time spent on the latest round (L-049 to L-065 + 29 failures):

• The L-049~L-065 fixes were committed 09-03 at 16:47, 17:55, 18:21, 20:25, 20:33, 23:38
• But these are commit times, not necessarily continuous working time.

Actually, from the summary, this was one session (the previous conversation) that handled L-055/L-061/L-062 first, then L-041/L-053/L-059/L-060/L-063, then L-064/L-065, then 29 failures, then false-green assertions. That was the last session.

For the whole “近期” period (last ~6 days: 08-30 to 09-04), the work was:

• 08-30: P0-2 native SSE UAF fix, L-021, L-013, docs, CI fixes
• 08-31: L-033, L-024, L-022/023/032, L-026/028, L-038/039, L-025/031/043, L-037/044/045, CI baseline rebuilds
• 09-01: P0-A lexer rewrite, L-036/037/044/045 builtin_map, CI gates, pre-push quality gates, 断言质量门禁
• 09-02: unified 后端构造函数名映射+继承基类
• 09-03: 大文件清理, L-049~L-065 (16 fixes), 29 test failures fix, 假绿断言
• 09-04: 假绿断言 (last session)

Wait, actually looking at the timeline more carefully, the commits from 09-03 include the L-049~L-065 fixes and the 29 failures fix. The false-green was 09-03 20:33 and 09-04 session.

Let me verify the current repo state (git status) and confirm what remains. Let me also check if there’s a 第十轮总纲.md that lists remaining tasks.

Let me do a few quick checks:

Actually, I have plenty of information from the summary. Let me focus on producing the deliverable.

But I want to verify a couple of things:

From summary’s Pending Tasks:

Plus from known_issues.md §12.4/12.5:

• 12.4 _inline_small_functions_pass 过度激进
• 12.5 stdlib/lightpub/init.py:45 路由到仓库外绝对路径
• 12.6 50 个整文件注释的伪代码 stdlib 模块
• 15.1 除以 语义分叉
• 15.2 stdout 编码
• 17.2 POSIX TLS stub
• 17.3 溢出路径泄漏
• 14.1 15 处 reconfigure 缺 errors (其中2个高风险)
• 14.2 列表工具.light 注释与事实不符
• 14.4/14.5 假测试门禁 (已处置/已裁决)

OK, let me now build the summary. I’ll use the dynamic-ui skill to render a dashboard. Let me load the skill first — the instructions say to load the relevant scene guidance. Since I’m creating a summary dashboard with severity/difficulty/time data and remaining issues, this is a “data-visualization” type widget (or a combination). Let me invoke the dynamic-ui skill.

Actually, per the skill instructions, I should call the Skill tool to load dynamic-ui. Let me do that. But wait — the skill says “You MUST call PureShowWidget to render the visual” and “load the relevant dynamic-ui skill before generating output”. The system reminder says I should use the Skill tool. Let me invoke it.

Let me first check git status and the 第十轮总纲 to complete my data gathering, then load the skill.

数据已收集完毕，先看一下近6天的修补工作量，然后用可视化信息图汇总。

Now I have a comprehensive view. Let me organize the data:

Recent work (08-30 to 09-04, ~6 days):

Commit timeline breakdown:

• 08-30: P0-2 SSE UAF fix + native leg entrance, L-021 属性 context, L-013 single-line loop, CI fixes
• 08-31: L-033 \\uXXXX, L-024 遍历X于Y, L-022/023/032, L-026/028, L-038/039, L-025/031/043, L-037/044/045, 求和 3.14+ compat, CI baseline rebuilds ×4
• 09-01: P0-A lexer rewrite (longest-match), A9 builtin_map 收口 L-036/037/044/045, pre-push 守卫 (断言质量门禁, 模板清单守卫, 自举率基线), unified 后端 MemberAccess/KeywordArg/构造函数映射/继承基类
• 09-02: unified 后端构造函数名映射+继承基类 (关闭 feature_core 3个语言缺口)
• 09-03: 大文件清理 (12.7MB video + 1.15MB cache), L-049~L-064 修复 + L-065 文档补充, 29 test failures fix, 假绿断言
• 09-04: 假绿断言 (test_L055_L061_L062)

Wait, actually the commits for L-049~L-065 were on 09-03. And the “29 failures” fix was also 09-03 20:25. The false-green was 09-03 20:33 and the session on 09-04.

Now let me classify the L-049 to L-065 by severity and difficulty:

From the ledger entries, I can classify:

L-049 (as 绑定): 捕获错误as变量 — 修复 parser_stmt.py catch clause. 难度: 低. 严重度: 中 (语法能力缺失, 有绕法)
L-050 (中文捕获变量名): 已修复 (此前改动已消除). 难度: 低. 严重度: 低 (有绕法)
L-051 (多行字面量缩进): lexer bracket_stack. 难度: 中. 严重度: 高 (破坏后续块缩进, 严重) — 实际上这是核心词法问题
L-052 (字符串插值 ${}): parser_expr 前置判定. 难度: 低. 严重度: 中
L-053 (己 self 引用): code_generator 门禁. 难度: 中. 严重度: 中
L-054 (嵌套字面量 \\n 破坏缩进): 未修复. 难度: 高 (与 L-051 相关但更隐蔽). 严重度: 高 (静默把语句降级到模块级, 假象)
L-055 (写 f(x) 实参丢弃): codegen _try_merge_output_concat 扩展. 难度: 中. 严重度: 高 (静默丢实参)
L-056 (等待 关键字边界): lexer _await_in_name. 难度: 中. 严重度: 中 (SyntaxError 明显, 有绕法)
L-057 (类方法内函数值调用): 连带解决 (L-014 家族). 难度: 低(连带). 严重度: 高 (静默失败)
L-058 (inline-if 赋值静默不执行): parser 前视守卫. 难度: 中. 严重度: 高 (静默不执行→假阳性)
L-059 (空=None): 设计特性, 非缺陷. 严重度: 无
L-060 (终/函数 保留字): parser 上下文感知. 难度: 中. 严重度: 中
L-061 (异常格式化器错乱): 三层根因 (LIGHT_SRC注释 + 行号填充 + _map_py_to_light). 难度: 高. 严重度: 高 (误导排查)
L-062 (副本 只接受字典): stdlib 新增. 难度: 低. 严重度: 低
L-063 (字典裸键): codegen DictLiteral. 难度: 低. 严重度: 中 (静默语义错)
L-064 (长段落缩进归零): parser max_statements=100 → 100000. 难度: 低 (根因简单但难发现). 严重度: 高 (静默降级模块级)
L-065 (导入快照语义): 文档补充, 设计特性. 严重度: 无

So classification:

• 已修复(代码): L-049,050,051,052,053,055,056,057,058,060,061,062,063,064 = 14
• 设计特性(确认/文档化): L-059, L-065 = 2
• 未修复: L-054 = 1

Now the “时间” (time). The L-049~L-065 round was committed 09-03 (16:47 → 23:38), one working day. But actually the previous session (before context loss) did this. The summary says these were the last round. Actually wait — the summary says “处理L-054（嵌套字面量内\\n破坏缩进）” is a pending task. And L-049~L-065 fixes were done in a session on 09-03.

Hmm, but the commit times show L-055/L-061/L-062 at 16:47, L-041/L-053/L-059/L-060/L-063 at 17:55, L-064 at 18:21, 29 failures at 20:25, 假绿 at 20:33, 直调基线 at 23:38. That’s one intense day (09-03).

Wait, L-041 was mentioned in the commit “修复 L-041/L-053/L-059/L-060/L-063 五缺陷” — but L-041 wasn’t in my grep range (L-049~L-065). L-041 is an earlier defect. Let me note that.

Let me also double-check: the summary said “16个已修复（含2处假绿断言优化），1个（L-054）未修复”. But my count of actual code fixes in L-049~L-065 is 14 + 2 design = 16 “closed”. OK that matches if we count 2 design closures as “已修复/关闭”.

Hmm wait, actually the ledger might have more. Let me not over-think. The headline: 本轮 L-049~L-065 共 17 条，14 条代码修复，2 条确认为设计特性，1 条（L-054）未修。

Now for time estimates per fix. Since the session happened over one day for L-049~L-065, I can estimate based on commit gaps:

• L-055/061/062: 16:47
• L-041/053/059/060/063: 17:55 (diff ~1h)
• L-064/065: 18:21 (diff ~25min)
• 29 failures: 20:25
• 假绿: 20:33
• 直调基线: 23:38

These are commit times though, not actual effort. For an “at a glance” summary, I’ll use the commit-timestamp-based rough durations. But honestly, I should present this as “按提交时间戳估算” with a note.

Actually, let me reconsider. For a summary that’s “一目了然”, I’ll organize by defect with severity/difficulty/time/status. For time, I’ll give rough ranges based on the git commit timeline within the 09-03 session.

Let me structure the summary:

Part 1: 总览 — 近6天 (08-30 ~ 09-04), 修复 ~40+ 缺陷 (语言缺陷 + 测试 + CI)

Actually let me count the total L-series defects fixed in this period:

• 08-30: L-013, L-021
• 08-31: L-022, L-023, L-024, L-025, L-026, L-028, L-031, L-032, L-033, L-037, L-038, L-039, L-043, L-044, L-045 = 16
• 09-01: L-036 (builtin_map 收口), P0-A 词法重构, unified 后端 (feature_core)
• 09-02: unified 后端构造函数映射+继承基类
• 09-03: L-049~L-064 (14代码修复), 29 failures, 大文件清理
• 09-04: 假绿断言

Hmm, but not all of those were “language defect fixes in a single session”. Some L-fixes on 08-31 were grouped. Let me count the L-series in the whole period:

08-30: L-013, L-021 (2)
08-31: L-022, L-023, L-024, L-025, L-026, L-028, L-031, L-032, L-033, L-037, L-038, L-039, L-043, L-044, L-045 (15)
09-01: L-036, L-037(re), L-044(re), L-045(re) builtin_map 收口, P0-A
09-02: unified 后端 (feature_core 3 gaps)
09-03: L-049, L-050, L-051, L-052, L-053, L-055, L-056, L-057, L-058, L-060, L-061, L-062, L-063, L-064 (14 code fixes) + L-059, L-065 (2 design closures)

That’s a lot. For the summary I’ll focus on the most recent round (L-049~L-065, the “17 defect” round from the summary) plus the 29-failure fix, since that’s what the user’s previous sessions were about. And I’ll give a broader timeline view.

Actually, re-reading the user’s request: “总结近期light的修补任务情况” — summarize recent Light patching tasks. So the recent period is what matters. I’ll cover 08-30 to 09-04 (this work period).

Let me now produce the deliverable using dynamic-ui. I’ll load the skill first.

For the visualization, I’ll create:

Let me load the dynamic-ui skill.

Now I have the skill loaded. Let me read the relevant scene file (data-visualization) and tokens to build the widget properly. Actually, I have the tokens file content already from the context. Let me read the data-visualization scene file to make sure I follow it. Actually, since this is a summary dashboard with severity/difficulty/time, it’s a mix of data visualization. The best fit is a “compact-table-visual” fallback primitive or a combination of metric strip + table.

Actually, let me think about the best visual. The user wants:

This is a “data shape” query where a visual helps. But there are many items (17 defects + 8 remaining issues). Per the complexity budget, I should:

• Use metric strip for the headline numbers (修复 14 / 设计特性 2 / 未修 1, 总计 17)
• Use a compact table for the defect-by-defect detail (severity + difficulty + time + status)
• Use a separate visual for remaining issues (severity-ranked list)

The “compact-table-visual” fallback primitive fits well for the defect table. And I can do a metric strip for the top KPI.

Let me plan 2 widgets:

Actually the guidance says “For complex topics, use multiple PureShowWidget calls — break the explanation into a series of smaller diagrams”. And “Always add prose between widgets”.

Let me structure:

Text intro → Widget 1: 总览指标条 + 严重度/难易度分布 → prose → Widget 2: 缺陷明细表 → prose → Widget 3: 遗留问题清单

Hmm, but let me not overdo it. Let me do:

• Widget 1: 近6天工作总览 (metric strip: 修复缺陷数、测试失败清零、涉及文件、假绿消除) + 严重度分布 + 难易度分布
• Widget 2: L-049~L-065 明细表 (17 rows, status colored)
• Widget 3: 遗留复杂问题清单 (8 items ranked by severity)

Let me read the data-visualization scene file to be safe, since I need the token contract and compact-table guidance.

Actually, I have the visual-tokens.md content in context (truncated). Let me read the full tokens file and the data-visualization scene.

数据已核实（提交时间线、缺陷账、遗留清单、测试结果）。下面用信息图汇总。

一、近期修补总览（08-30 ~ 09-04，约6天）

Now I have the full token contract and scene guidance. Let me plan the widgets.

Data summary for the widgets:

Widget 1: 近期修补总览（08-30 ~ 09-04，6天）

• KPI metric strip:

  • 语言缺陷修复: 本轮 L-049~L-065 中 14 处代码修复 + 2 处设计确认
  • 29 个测试失败 → 清零
  • 假绿断言: 2 处消除
  • 大文件: 12.7MB + 1.15MB 清出跟踪

• 严重度分布:

  • Let me classify severity for L-049~L-065:

    • 高 (严重): L-051, L-054, L-055, L-057, L-058, L-061, L-064 = 7
    • 中: L-049, L-052, L-053, L-056, L-060, L-063 = 6
    • 低: L-050, L-062 = 2
    • 设计/无: L-059, L-065 = 2
      Total = 17

  • Hmm, wait. Let me be more careful. The severity classification should be based on the impact described in the ledger:

    • L-049 (as绑定不支持): 中 — 语法能力缺失，有绕法
    • L-050 (中文捕获变量名): 低 — 有绕法，已连带修复
    • L-051 (多行字面量破坏缩进): 高 — 破坏后续块缩进
    • L-052 (字符串插值): 中 — NameError，有绕法
    • L-053 (己 self): 中 — NameError，有绕法
    • L-054 (嵌套\\n破坏缩进): 高 — 静默降级模块级，无可靠绕法
    • L-055 (写 f(x) 丢实参): 高 — 静默丢实参 + 类型错误
    • L-056 (等待关键字拆分): 中 — 明显 SyntaxError，有绕法
    • L-057 (类方法函数值调用): 高 — 静默失败
    • L-058 (inline-if 赋值静默不执行): 高 — 静默不执行→假阳性
    • L-059 (空=None): 设计特性 — 非缺陷
    • L-060 (终/函数保留字): 中 — 语法错，有绕法
    • L-061 (异常格式化器错乱): 高 — 误导排查，行号错位
    • L-062 (副本只接受字典): 低 — 类型错误，有绕法
    • L-063 (字典裸键): 中 — 静默语义错
    • L-064 (长段落缩进归零): 高 — 静默降级模块级，难复现
    • L-065 (导入快照): 设计特性 — 文档化

    高=7 (L-051,054,055,057,058,061,064), 中=6 (L-049,052,053,056,060,063), 低=2 (L-050,062), 设计=2 (L-059,065)
    合计 17 ✓

• 难易度分布:

  • 难 (高): L-054(未修), L-061 (三层根因), L-064 (根因隐蔽), L-051 (词法括号栈) = 4
  • 中: L-053, L-055, L-056, L-058, L-060, L-063 = 6
  • 低 (易): L-049, L-050, L-052, L-057, L-062 = 5
  • 设计/无: L-059, L-065 = 2
    Total = 17 ✓

  Hmm, let me reconsider L-051 difficulty. The bracket_stack fix in lexer is moderately complex (中). L-064 is hard to find but simple fix (根因隐蔽但改动一行) — I’d call it 中难. L-061 is genuinely hard (三层根因). L-054 is hard (未修).

  Let me use a simpler classification that’s defensible:

  • 难: L-054 (未修), L-061 (三层根因), L-051 (词法栈改造)
  • 中: L-053, L-055, L-056, L-058, L-060, L-063, L-064
  • 易: L-049, L-050, L-052, L-057, L-062
  • 设计: L-059, L-065
    That’s 难=3, 中=7, 易=5, 设计=2 = 17 ✓

• 耗时 (per fix, estimated from commit timeline 09-03 session 16:47-23:38 ≈ 7h for the whole round, but that includes multiple fixes; individual fixes were minutes to ~1h):
  This is tricky. The whole L-049~L-065 + 29-failures round was one session on 09-03. Let me estimate per-fix time ranges based on commit gaps and complexity. I’ll present “估算” clearly.

  Actually, for an at-a-glance summary, I can present time in coarse buckets per defect:

  • L-049: ~15min (简单改 parser)
  • L-050: ~5min (连带已修, 登记)
  • L-051: ~40min (lexer 括号栈)
  • L-052: ~15min
  • L-053: ~30min
  • L-054: 未修 (已投入 ~1h 未果, 有绕法)
  • L-055: ~30min
  • L-056: ~25min
  • L-057: 连带修复 (~0)
  • L-058: ~20min
  • L-059: ~5min (设计确认)
  • L-060: ~20min
  • L-061: ~60min (三层根因)
  • L-062: ~15min (stdlib 新增)
  • L-063: ~15min
  • L-064: ~30min (根因排查耗时)
  • L-065: ~10min (文档)
    合计 ≈ 5.8h ≈ 6h for 17 items. Plus 29 failures (~1.5h) + 假绿 (~0.5h) + 大文件清理 (~0.3h). Total 09-03 session ≈ 8h.

  Hmm, these are my estimates. I should label them as estimates (估算). This is honest per the “Label estimates as estimates” rule.

Widget 2: 明细表 — 17 rows, columns: 编号 | 问题要点 | 严重度 | 难易度 | 耗时(估) | 状态
This is a compact-table-visual. With 17 rows it’s a lot. Maybe I should keep the table in the widget but compact. Or split: I could do the table in Markdown and keep widgets for the aggregate. But the user wants “一目了然” — a table visual would help.

Given complexity budget (2-5 main nodes, etc.), a 17-row table is at the edge. The skill says “For 5+ items: group, wrap, or split” and compact tables are a supported fallback primitive. A table is fine for 3+ dimensions. Let me keep the table but make it compact (small text, tight rows).

Actually, let me structure as:

• Widget 1: 总览 metric strip (4 KPIs) + 严重度/难易度 two small distribution bars (纯 HTML bars)
• Widget 2: L-049~L-065 明细表 (17 rows)
• Widget 3: 遗留复杂问题 (8 items, severity-ordered cards/list)

That’s 3 widgets. Reasonable for a “summary report” request. But the guidance says don’t overdo. Actually the user asked for a comprehensive summary, so 3 widgets is justified. But let me reconsider — maybe 2 widgets:

• Widget 1: 总览 + 分布 + 明细表 combined (one big widget with metric strip + two distribution blocks + table)
• Widget 2: 遗留问题

Hmm. Widget 1 would be too dense. The skill says use multiple widgets for complex topics with prose between. Let me do:

• Widget 1: 总览（KPI 条 + 严重度/难易度分布）
• Widget 2: 缺陷明细表（L-049~L-065）
• Widget 3: 遗留复杂问题清单

Let me now carefully write the widget code. I’ll use fallback primitives:

• metric-strip-chart for KPI
• compact-table-visual for the table
• decision-cards or compact-table for remaining issues

Widget 1 design (data-visualization scene, custom):

• Title: 近期 Light 修补总览
• Metric strip: 4 KPIs:
  • 语言缺陷处置 17 条（14 修 + 2 设计 + 1 未修）
  • 测试失败 29 → 0
  • 假绿断言 2 处消除
  • 大文件清理 13.9MB 移出跟踪
• Distribution: two horizontal stacked bars (severity, difficulty) with counts and legend.

Actually the metric numbers:

• 语言缺陷: 17 条处置 (L-049~L-065)
• 测试失败: 29 清零
• 假绿断言: 2 处
• 大文件: 12.7MB + 1.15MB ≈ 13.9MB

For severity distribution (17 items):

• 高 = 7 (含未修的 L-054)
• 中 = 6
• 低 = 2
• 设计 = 2

For difficulty:

• 难 = 3 (含未修的 L-054)
• 中 = 7
• 易 = 5
• 设计 = 2

Colors: severity uses semantic (status/risk encoding is the primary variable here — 严重度 is a risk variable, so semantic colors justified: danger=高, warning=中, accent or chart-other for 低/设计). Actually for severity: 高=–danger, 中=–warning, 低=–chart-other or neutral, 设计=–chart-series-2. Hmm, but the token guidance says use semantic only when the data field is a status/risk variable — 严重度 IS a risk variable. OK.

For difficulty: it’s a peer category (难/中/易/设计), use chart-series scale. 难=–chart-series-1, 中=–chart-series-2, 易=–chart-series-3, 设计=–chart-other.

Hmm wait, that’s a bit arbitrary. Let me use a consistent approach: since severity is the risk encoding, use danger/warning/success-ish. For difficulty, use chart-series.

Widget 2: table with 17 rows. Columns: 编号 | 问题 | 严重度 | 难易度 | 耗时 | 状态. That’s 6 columns. The “问题” text needs to be short (2-5 words ideally). Let me shorten.

Let me draft the table data (concise):
| L-049 | as 绑定不生效 | 中 | 易 | ~15m | ✅ 已修 |
| L-050 | 中文捕获变量名 | 低 | 易 | ~5m | ✅ 已修 |
| L-051 | 多行字面量坏缩进 | 高 | 难 | ~40m | ✅ 已修 |
| L-052 | ${} 误判插值 | 中 | 易 | ~15m | ✅ 已修 |
| L-053 | 己 类外作 self | 中 | 中 | ~30m | ✅ 已修 |
| L-054 | 嵌套\\n 坏缩进 | 高 | 难 | ~1h 未果 | ⚠️ 未修 |
| L-055 | 写 f(x) 丢实参 | 高 | 中 | ~30m | ✅ 已修 |
| L-056 | 等待 拆关键字 | 中 | 中 | ~25m | ✅ 已修 |
| L-057 | 类内函数值调用 | 高 | 易 | 连带 | ✅ 已修 |
| L-058 | inline-if 赋值失效 | 高 | 中 | ~20m | ✅ 已修 |
| L-059 | 空=Null 语义 | 设计 | 设计 | ~5m | ✅ 确认 |
| L-060 | 终/函数 保留字 | 中 | 中 | ~20m | ✅ 已修 |
| L-061 | 异常格式化器错乱 | 高 | 难 | ~60m | ✅ 已修 |
| L-062 | 副本 限字典 | 低 | 易 | ~15m | ✅ 已修 |
| L-063 | 字典裸键 | 中 | 中 | ~15m | ✅ 已修 |
| L-064 | 长段落缩进归零 | 高 | 中 | ~30m | ✅ 已修 |
| L-065 | 导入快照语义 | 设计 | 设计 | ~10m | ✅ 文档化 |

Wait, for L-064 I put difficulty 中 (fix is one line but diagnosis is hard). And L-051 difficulty 难 (lexer bracket stack). L-061 难. L-054 难 (未修). So 难=3 ✓ (L-051, 054, 061). 中=7 (L-053,055,056,058,060,063,064). 易=5 (L-049,050,052,057,062). 设计=2 (L-059,065). Total 17 ✓.

Total estimated time: 15+5+40+15+30+60+30+25+0+20+5+20+60+15+15+30+10 = 395 min ≈ 6.6h. Hmm, L-054 is “1h 未果” (invested but not fixed). Let me count that. 395 min ≈ 6.6h. Plus 29 failures 1.5h + 假绿 0.5h + 大文件 0.3h ≈ 9h total for the 09-03/09-04 round.

Hmm, but I should be careful about over-claiming precision on time. I’ll mark it “估算” and use ranges. Actually let me present per-fix time in coarse form: <15m / 15-30m / 30-60m / >60m. Or just minutes. I’ll show the rounded minutes with a note “按提交时间戳与复杂度估算”.

Actually, for honesty, let me present the per-defect time as rough estimates. The whole 09-03 round had commits spanning 16:47-23:38 (~7h wall clock). But wall clock ≠ working time. I’ll note estimates are coarse.

Let me reconsider — maybe simpler to present per-fix time as a coarse bucket label instead of precise minutes:

• L-049: 快 (<15m)
• L-050: 极快 (连带)
• etc.

Actually, precise-ish minutes with a clear “估算” label is fine and more useful. Let me go with minutes estimates, labeled 估算.

Widget 3: 遗留复杂问题 (8 items):

Plus others: 大文件已清、假绿已清、29 failures 已清 — those are done.

The 遗留 list: let me rank by severity:

• P0/高: L-054, 除以 分叉, POSIX TLS, 自举覆盖, LLVM stdlib 覆盖 (5)
• P1/中: stdout 编码, lightc.py 崩, 内联 pass, 溢出路径 (4)

Actually from known_issues.md P0: 自举编译器覆盖 + LLVM 后端 stdlib 覆盖. So those are P0 too.

Let me organize remaining issues into 3 tiers:

• 高危/待裁决: 除以 双后端分叉 (语义裁决)、L-054、POSIX TLS
• 高 P0 (v6.1): 自举编译器覆盖、LLVM stdlib 覆盖
• 中 P1 (第十轮 R10-1~R10-7): lightc.py 必崩、stdout 编码、内联 pass 激进、溢出路径泄漏

Let me present as a severity-ranked list. That’s 9 items. Good for a compact list.

Actually the summary’s pending tasks list had 8:

Plus from 第十轮总纲 R10-3 (行号透传). Let me include the main ones. I’ll present ~9 items.

Now let me write the widgets. I’ll use the fallback primitive approach with tokens.

Let me design widget 1 carefully (HTML, no SVG):

<style>
:root { …tokens… }
:root[data-widget-theme="dark"] { … }
.w { color: var(–text); font: 400 14px/20px var(–font-sans); }
.card { background: var(–surface); border: 1px solid var(–border); border-radius: var(–radius-card); padding: var(–spacer-20); }
.metric-grid { display: grid; grid-template-columns: repeat(4, 1fr); gap: var(–spacer-12); }
.metric { background: var(–surface); border: 1px solid var(–border); border-radius: var(–radius); padding: var(–spacer-16); }
.metric .label { font: 500 12px/18px var(–font-sans); color: var(–text-muted); }
.metric .value { font: 600 16px/24px var(–font-metric); }
.metric .sub { font: 400 12px/18px var(–font-sans); color: var(–text-muted); }
.dist-row { display:flex; align-items:center; gap: var(–spacer-8); }
.bar-track { flex:1; height: 12px; border-radius: var(–radius-full); background: var(–surface-muted); overflow:hidden; display:flex; }
…
</style>

For the severity bar segments, I need widths: 高 7/17=41%, 中 6/17=35%, 低 2/17=12%, 设计 2/17=12%.
Difficulty: 难 3/17=18%, 中 7/17=41%, 易 5/17=29%, 设计 2/17=12%.

Use inline style widths — that’s fine (data-driven geometry).

Colors for severity segments: –danger, –warning, –chart-other, –chart-series-2 (设计). Hmm, for 设计 (design decision), neutral is better. Let me use: 高=–danger, 中=–warning, 低=–chart-series-3, 设计=–chart-other (neutral gray = lower importance, which fits “设计确认/无修复”). Good.

For difficulty: 难=–chart-series-1, 中=–chart-series-2, 易=–chart-series-3, 设计=–chart-other.

Legend dots under each.

Widget 2: table.
Columns: 编号 | 问题要点 | 严重度 | 难易度 | 耗时(估) | 状态

• 编号: mono
• 问题要点: body text (short)
• 严重度: badge (高=danger tag, 中=warning tag, 低=neutral, 设计=neutral)
• 难易度: text
• 耗时: mono
• 状态: badge (已修=success, 未修=danger, 确认/文档化=neutral)

Status: I’ll use ✅/⚠️ glyphs? The guidance says avoid emojis unless requested. Hmm. Emojis in widget — the system says “Only use emojis if the user explicitly requests it.” Better to use text badges: “已修” (success color), “未修” (danger), “确认/文档” (neutral).

Actually using colored badges without emoji is cleaner. Let me do text tags with semantic colors.

Widget 3: remaining issues list — cards or a compact table:
Tier 1 (P0 高危, 需先处理):

• 除以 双后端语义分叉 — 同一份代码两条腿答案不同；需裁决 (a)补浮点 / (b)定整数除法
• L-054 嵌套字面量 \\n — 缩进破坏，语句静默降级模块级；暂用 chr(10) 绕
• POSIX 原生 TLS — 仅 Windows Schannel，POSIX stub；排期第九轮 B9 S2
  Tier 2 (P0, v6.1 排期):
• 自举编译器覆盖 (复杂嵌套泛型等边缘特性)
• LLVM 后端 stdlib 覆盖 (部分函数回退 Python)
  Tier 3 (P1, 第十轮 R10):
• cli/lightc.py 必崩 (SemanticAnalyzer 少传 module)
• 转译后端 stdout 编码不统一 (ANSI vs UTF-8)
• 内联 pass 过度激进 (被地址引用的小函数误删)
• 溢出文件绝对路径泄漏 (进程树.light:248)

I’ll present these as grouped tiers with severity tags.

Let me now write all three widgets. I’ll write clean token-based CSS.

One consideration: the table with 17 rows is long but that’s the point of “一目了然”. I’ll keep rows compact (caption-ish text 12px, mono numbers). Actually body text should be ≥14px per rendering contract (“Body text ≥14px, never below 11px”). Wait, the contract says “Body text ≥14px, never below 11px”. But tokens define –text-caption as 12px/18px for captions. Table secondary text can use –text-caption (12px). The skill says body text ≥14px, but captions/table secondary can be 12px. Let me use 12px caption for table rows to keep it compact — that’s allowed for table text per tokens (caption role). Actually the contract says “Body text ≥14px, never below 11px” — 12px caption is fine.

Hmm, but the row “问题要点” is body-ish text. I’ll keep it at –text-body 14px for readability. The table might get tall but that’s OK — it’s inline and scrollable? No nested scrolling allowed. The widget will just be tall. That’s acceptable for a summary table. Actually, 17 rows × ~36px = ~610px. That’s quite tall but the widget can be tall (streamed inline). Should be OK.

Let me reconsider: maybe use –text-caption (12px) for the table to keep it compact. Table cells are “secondary table text” which the tokens allow as caption. I’ll use 12px for cells, 13px mono for numbers. That gives ~30px rows → ~510px. Fine.

Let me write widget 1 now.

Actually, let me reconsider the whole structure to reduce widget count and follow “chart-only” rules (analysis in text, not in widget).

Widget 1 (总览):

• Title “近6天 Light 修补总览（08-30 ~ 09-04）”
• 4 metric cards
• 2 distribution bars (严重度/难易度) with legend

Widget 2 (明细):

• Title “L-049 ~ L-065 缺陷明细”
• table 17 rows

Widget 3 (遗留):

• Title “遗留复杂问题（未修 / 排期中）”
• grouped list by tier

Let me write the code.

For tokens, I need to emit the token CSS in widget_code. Let me write it.

Widget 1 code:

<style>
:root {
color-scheme: light;
–surface: #F7F7F8;
–surface-muted: #EFEFF2;
–text: #171717;
–text-muted: #52525B;
–border: rgba(23, 23, 23, 0.12);
–brand: #4B3FE3;
–brand-soft: #F2F7FF;
–brand-text: #1A1759;
–brand-on: #FFFFFF;
–chart-series-1: #3C2ECA;
–chart-series-2: #A9AEFF;
–chart-series-3: #6F6FFF;
–chart-series-4: #22A5F7;
–chart-other: #D3D4DA;
–accent: #27D2BF;
–accent-text: #0F766E;
–success: #1DC981;
–warning: #EFAA17;
–danger: #E8463A;
–radius: 8px;
–radius-card: 12px;
–radius-full: 999px;
–spacer-4: 4px; –spacer-8: 8px; –spacer-12: 12px; –spacer-16: 16px; –spacer-20: 20px; –spacer-24: 24px;
–font-sans: "SF Pro Text", "PingFang SC", system-ui, -apple-system, "Segoe UI", Roboto, sans-serif;
–font-metric: "Inter", "SF Pro Text", "PingFang SC", system-ui, -apple-system, "Segoe UI", Roboto, sans-serif;
–font-mono: "JetBrains Mono", ui-monospace, "SF Mono", Menlo, Consolas, monospace;
–weight-regular: 400; –weight-medium: 500; –weight-strong: 600;
–text-caption: 12px/18px; –text-body: 14px/20px; –text-title: 16px/24px; –text-code: 13px/20px;
}
:root[data-widget-theme="dark"] {
color-scheme: dark;
–surface: #171717; –surface-muted: #262626; –text: #E5E5E5; –text-muted: #A1A1AA;
–border: rgba(229,229,229,0.12); –brand: #6054F1; –brand-soft: #1A1759; –brand-text: #CFD8FF;
–chart-series-1: #4B3FE3;
}
.w { color: var(–text); font: var(–weight-regular) var(–text-body) var(–font-sans); }
…

Let me write all CSS + content. I’ll keep it structured.

Actually, for the dark-mode chart-series-2 (A9AEFF) etc., they stay same in dark. Fine.

Now, let me also double check data honesty on the metric “测试失败 29 → 0”: The 29 failures were from 4 test files, all fixed on 09-03. And the ledger L-064 fix mentions “全量回归 3791 passed”. So the suite is green. Good.

Metric strip values:

Now let me build. I’ll do the three PureShowWidget calls with prose between.

Actually — let me reconsider whether 3 widgets is too much. The user asked “总结近期light的修补任务情况…让人一目了然”. A good summary could be 2 widgets: (1) 总览+明细 (combined), (2) 遗留问题. But combining 17-row table + metric strip + distributions in one widget is dense. The skill encourages splitting complex topics into multiple widgets with prose between. I’ll go with 3.

Let me write widget 1.

本轮 17 条语言缺陷中，高严重度占了 7 条（多为"静默出错/语句被降级"这类不报错、难发现的类型），难易度以中档为主。逐条明细如下。

二、L-049 ~ L-065 缺陷明细（耗时按提交时间戳与复杂度估算）

Widget 1 rendered. Now widget 2 – the defect table with 17 rows.

Let me write the compact table. Columns: 编号 | 问题要点 | 严重度 | 难易度 | 耗时(估) | 状态.

Note: estimates labeled as such. Status badges: 已修=success, 未修=danger, 确认=neutral, 文档化=neutral.

Let me write it.

17 条里 15 条已闭合（14 代码修复 + 1 设计确认），只剩 L-054 一条未修。下面是遗留问题清单。

三、遗留的复杂问题（未修 / 排期中）

Widget 2 rendered. Now widget 3: remaining complex issues.

Let me organize the remaining issues into tiers:

• 高危/需裁决: 除以 双后端分叉（P0 语义裁决）、L-054（未修）
• 中高危: POSIX 原生 TLS（仅 Windows）、P0 自举覆盖、P0 LLVM stdlib 覆盖
• P1 中: lightc.py 必崩、stdout 编码、内联 pass 激进、溢出路径泄漏

Let me write widget 3 as grouped tier cards.

All three widgets rendered. Now let me provide the accompanying prose summary. Let me also add the defect source links.

Let me write a concise text summary that ties it together:

• 近期工作一览 (already in widgets)
• 遗留问题结论 + 建议下一步 (L-054 是最接近可动手的，但"除以"分叉需要裁决)

I should reference files with clickable links:

• 语言缺陷账: g:\\dswork\\duan-light-merge\\lightharness\\docs\\功能对标\\语言缺陷账.md
• known_issues.md: g:\\dswork\\duan-light-merge\\light-merge\\docs\\known_issues.md
• 第十轮总纲: g:\\dswork\\duan-light-merge\\light-merge\\任务书\\第十轮总纲.md
• 进程树.light:248

Let me write the final summary text. Keep it concise but informative.
三张信息图已给出。汇总如下：

近期修补工作情况（08-30 ~ 09-04）

已完成（主分支工作树干净，四远端同步）

• 语言缺陷：L-049~L-065 共 17 条，14 条代码修复 + 2 条确认设计特性（L-059 空=Null、L-065 导入快照），1 条未修（L-054）。绝大多数在 09-03 单日收口（约 7h 提交窗口）。
• 测试回归：29 个失败全部清零（c_backend 段落语法 24 例、L2 文言体"之"关键字 2 例、进程树编码/孙进程逃逸 2 例、pty 解码 1 例）；全量回归绿（L-064 修复时实测 3791 passed）。
• 质量门禁：消除 2 处假绿断言；断言质量门禁、自举率基线、pre-push 守卫均就位。
• 大文件：12.7MB 视频 + 1.15MB 向量缓存移出 git 跟踪。

主要模式：高严重度（7 条）多为"静默出错"型——不报错、逻辑悄悄错或语句被降级，比直接报错的更难发现；难修的主要是词法层（L-051 括号栈、L-061 三层根因、L-054 未果）。

遗留问题结论

真正"没解决"的复杂问题共 9 项，按优先级：

建议下一步：优先裁决"除以"语义（它决定 6 例判据的归属），其次可动手修 P1 里最独立的一项——[cli/lightc.py 必崩](file:///g:/dswork/duan-light-merge/light-merge/cli/lightc.py)（R10-1，补 module 参数即可）。L-054 与词法缩进强相关，建议结合 L-051 的括号栈实现单独排查。

数据来源：[语言缺陷账.md](file:///g:/dswork/duan-light-merge/lightharness/docs/功能对标/语言缺陷账.md)、[known_issues.md](file:///g:/dswork/duan-light-merge/light-merge/docs/known_issues.md)、[第十轮总纲.md](file:///g:/dswork/duan-light-merge/light-merge/任务书/第十轮总纲.md)。

需要我直接动手处理其中某一项（比如"除以"语义裁决前的取证，或修 lightc.py）吗？