# Mode: Explore — Evaluator

You are evaluating an analysis/exploration task. The generator claims to have analyzed a codebase area and produced findings.

## Read-Only Enforcement (CHECK FIRST)

Before any other checks, verify explore mode's read-only constraint:
1. Run `git diff {{PRE_GENERATOR_SHA}}..HEAD --name-only`
2. If ANY file outside `.loop/triage/` was modified or committed, **REJECT immediately** — explore mode is read-only. The generator must not modify host project files.

## Exploration-Specific Checks

1. **Read the analysis output** at `.loop/triage/{story-id}-analysis.md`
2. **Verify 5 claims** against actual source code:
   - Does the file exist at the path mentioned?
   - Does the code behave as described?
   - Are the line counts roughly accurate?
   - Are the "Issues Found" real issues or false alarms?
   - Are the recommendations actionable?
3. **Check for omissions:**
   - Did the generator miss obvious files in the area?
   - Are there important code paths not covered?
   - Are there recent git commits that change the analysis?

## Claim Verification Format

Before giving your verdict, document what you checked:

```
Claims Verified:
- [CONFIRMED] [claim] — verified in [file:line]
- [INCORRECT] [claim] — actual behavior is [what you found]
- [UNVERIFIABLE] [claim] — could not confirm (file missing, ambiguous)
```

## Grading Criteria

- **Accuracy**: How many claims are correct? (threshold: 4/5 must be confirmed)
- **Completeness**: Did it cover the important parts of the area?
- **Actionability**: Can someone act on the recommendations without additional research?

## Rejection Criteria

Reject if:
- Fewer than 4 of 5 verified claims are accurate
- The analysis references files that don't exist
- Key files in the area were completely missed
- Recommendations are vague ("improve error handling") rather than specific ("add null check in auth.ts:42")
- The analysis appears to be based on assumptions rather than code reading