FAQ

Why would I let a plugin block my commits?

Because the class of mistake it blocks is exactly the kind that’s easy to miss under normal review pressure: a banned crypto primitive, a hardcoded secret, a direct push to main. The blocking gates are narrow and specific, not a general “looks risky” heuristic, and each one names exactly what it caught and how to clear it. You don’t have to trust the framework’s judgment in the abstract; the first protected repository runs doctor’s harmless live-fire probe and requires the host to honor a real H-03 block.

Can a determined session bypass a hook?

Yes. Hooks cover supported host tool calls, and the installed Git backstop covers matching commit and push operations, but the repository owner ultimately controls the machine. They can uninstall the plugin, remove hooks, use an external tool, or disable the repository.

The precise guarantee is that every sanctioned bypass is logged. /ca:override appends an attributed line to overrides.log; /ca:dev records entry and exit. An out-of-band bypass is not magically observable, and codeArbiter does not claim otherwise. Uninstalling leaves existing audit files on disk, but the uninstall itself is not recorded unless the user records it. See the Hooks reference for the boundaries each hook actually covers.

What happens if I uninstall mid-feature?

.codearbiter/ is a root-level directory, not inside .claude/, specifically so it survives an uninstall: your specs, plans, decisions, and audit trail stay on disk. What you lose is enforcement: no orchestrator persona, no gates, no statusline. Reinstalling and re-enabling (arbiter: enabled still needs to be in CONTEXT.md’s frontmatter) picks back up against whatever state is still there. See The .codearbiter/ Directory Reference for exactly what that file controls.

Does this slow me down?

Yes, at commit time, by design: that’s when the blocking gates run. A test-first change, a review chain, a commit gate: none of that is free. The honest trade is that the cost lands predictably (at the gate, with a specific finding) instead of unpredictably (in production, or in a review three weeks later). For low-risk work (docs, dependency bumps, reverts), the small /ca:chore lane exists precisely because prose edits don’t need the same TDD ceremony as feature code. See The Gated-Lane Model for how gates scale to the work.

What data leaves my machine?

The blocking enforcement core sends nothing. Its Python guards are stdlib-only and make no network calls while evaluating shell, write, crypto, secret, or migration gates.

Other features have narrower, documented network behavior:

• SessionStart may run a detached, read-only git fetch against the repository’s configured remote for hygiene status. That uses normal Git transport and credentials.
• A once-daily, fail-silent update check sends an unauthenticated GET to GitHub’s public Releases API. It sends no repository content.
• /ca:sprint --farm is opt-in and sends byte-capped, secret-redacted task context to the OpenAI-compatible endpoint you configure. It is inert without the flag and provider key.
• Installing plugins, Pi tags, or sandbox container images uses the network in the ordinary way for those package sources.

Your .codearbiter/ state is repository data; codeArbiter has no hosted account or telemetry service that receives it. See Compatibility: Network Calls for the source-level inventory.

Can I use it on a team?

Yes. .codearbiter/ is meant to be committed. The board, the decision log, the audit trail, and the specs are shared project state, not personal configuration, so everyone working in the repo sees the same gates and the same history. The persona and hooks activate per-session for whoever has the plugin installed and the repo opted in. Core enforcement has no server component or per-seat account; the optional farm uses the provider endpoint you configure.

Can two users mix Claude Code and Codex in one repository?

Yes. This mixed-host workflow is why project state lives in .codearbiter/ instead of a host-owned settings directory. One user can run Claude Code while another runs Codex, or one user can alternate between them. Both adapters read the same context, decisions, task state, and audit records. Install and trust the appropriate plugin on each machine; do not initialize a second store. The verified parity boundary lists the intentional host differences.

What if the gates are wrong for my project?

Start with the project contracts: security-controls.md, tech-stack.md, and coding-standards.md are hand-editable living documents that reviewers read before judging a change. If a default pattern does not fit your stack, correct the governing contract or the gate implementation instead of normalizing repeated bypasses.

stage in CONTEXT.md is a displayed maturity signal, not an enforcement tuning knob. Changing it does not weaken or strengthen a gate. For a one-off exception, /ca:override is the sanctioned, logged path: it’s for individual bypasses, not a substitute for fixing a gate that’s structurally wrong for the project.

What’s the difference between an advisory and a blocking gate?

An advisory surfaces right after a write and never stops anything: it’s a nudge so a later blocking gate isn’t a surprise. A blocking gate stops the tool call outright. codeArbiter reserves blocking for damage that lands the moment code ships (a committed secret, a banned crypto primitive); things that only do damage once merged or deployed (a bad CI workflow, an IaC manifest change) are advisory, with the real enforcement point at PR review. See Enforcement & Security for the full breakdown.

Does codeArbiter write code for me, or just gate it?

Both, depending on the lane. /ca:fix, /ca:feature, and /ca:sprint route to author agents that write code test-first; /ca:refactor restructures with proof of behavioral parity. But codeArbiter never freelances past a slash command; see What Is codeArbiter for the request-to-ship flow, and The Gated-Lane Model for how each lane’s gates scale to its risk.

Where do I go if a rule from the docs conflicts with what a reviewer agent says?

/ca:conflict. codeArbiter never silently reconciles a conflict between persona, docs, and code. It stops, presents both sides and the level at which they clash (security and audit-trail correctness outranks maintainability, which outranks velocity; see What Is codeArbiter), and you decide.