hard-cheese

You can enforce a causal reasoning check before code review by using a metacognitive gate that requires the author to explain how and why a diff produces its behavior, grading the explanation against a rubric before sharing.

Epistemic debt in code review is the accumulated risk from unverified understanding of changes. You reduce it by requiring authors to demonstrate causal understanding of a diff before sharing it, ensuring the logic is articulated and graded.

You can set up a Socratic prompt retry loop by configuring a retry cap that triggers targeted Socratic questions on explanation failures, prompting the author to repair missing causal logic before re-evaluation.

Yes, the fresh-context judge grading uses a SOLO-based rubric to evaluate explanations. A separate judge sub-agent assesses the author's causal logic and returns a JSON object to determine pass or fail decisions.

Yes, you can operate in an optional log-only mode at the share-for-review boundary. This records the author's explanation attempts, statuses, and grades to an audit trail artifact without hard-blocking the review.

You persist an audit trail by writing status records, such as PASS, FAIL, and FAILED, along with attempt counts, to a markdown artifact file, ensuring all explanation evaluations and retry loops are documented for auditability.