feat(*): Be stricter regarding HITL

src/lib/server/ai.ts

@@ -91,20 +91,22 @@ export function buildGradingPromptWithSupportForHumanInTheLoop(
 ): string {
 	const safeSubmission = sanitizeForPrompt(submission);
 	const safeTask = sanitizeForPrompt(task);
+
 	const steps = `Follow these steps:
-1. Grade the work. Use whatever grading scheme is present in the rubric. If none is present, grade with a letter (A+ is best, E- is worst), using clear, objective criteria. Be aware that the rubric may just give a maximum number of marks, in which case you should mark out of that number, for example "(20)" would mean it's out of 20 marks. DO NOT mention tool errors. 
+  1. Grade the work. Use whatever grading scheme is present in the rubric. If none is present, grade with a letter (A+ is best, E- is worst), using clear, objective criteria. Be aware that the rubric may just give a maximum number of marks, in which case you should mark out of that number, for example "(20)" would mean it's out of 20 marks. DO NOT mention tool errors. 
-2. Identify specific strengths, referencing the success criteria.
+  2. Identify specific strengths, referencing the success criteria.
-3. Identify misconceptions or areas for improvement, using formative assessment language.
+  3. Identify misconceptions or areas for improvement, using formative assessment language.
-4. Design an individualized activity or exercise for the student to address their misconceptions or extend their learning. This activity should be:
+  4. Design an individualized activity or exercise for the student to address their misconceptions or extend their learning. This activity should be:
 	 - Appropriately scaffolded for the student's current level.
 	 - Specific and actionable (e.g., a short written task, a practical exercise, or a quiz question).
 	 - Aligned with the curriculum and learning objectives.
-5. Write a reflection question for the student to encourage metacognition.
+  5. Write a reflection question for the student to encourage metacognition.
-6. Suggest to the teacher one way to support this student in the next lesson.
+  6. Suggest to the teacher one way to support this student in the next lesson.
-7. Show your reasoning step by step (chain-of-thought).`;
+  7. Show your reasoning step by step (chain-of-thought).`;
+
 	const responseFormat = `RESPONSE FORMAT (respond with a single JSON object, no extra text):
   
-{
+  {
 	"grade": "<number or string, e.g. 8/10, A, B+>",
 	"strengths": "<text>",
 	"areasForImprovement": "<text>",
@@ -113,62 +115,74 @@ export function buildGradingPromptWithSupportForHumanInTheLoop(
 	"teacherSuggestion": "<text>",
 	"spellingAndGrammar": "<text>",
 	"reasoning": "<step-by-step explanation>"
-}`;
+  }
+  
+  Respond ONLY with the JSON object, with no preamble or explanation.`;
+
 	const extraSections = `
-CONFIDENCE CHECK:
+  CONFIDENCE CHECK:
   
-You should request human review if:
+  You should request human review if:
-- The submission does not meaningfully address the task or assignment.
+  - The submission does not meaningfully address the task or assignment.
-- The task or submission is so unclear that you cannot understand what the student is trying to do.
+  - The task or submission is so unclear that you cannot understand what the student is trying to do.
-- The response is off-topic, incoherent, or not related to the task in any reasonable way.
+  - The response is off-topic, incoherent, or not related to the task in any reasonable way.
-- The submission is so minimal (e.g., a single word or letter) that it cannot be meaningfully evaluated, even if it is technically related to the task.
+  - The submission is so minimal (e.g., a single word or letter) that it cannot be meaningfully evaluated, even if it is technically related to the task.
-- The submission demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the task (e.g., answering a different question or ignoring the core instruction).
+  - The submission demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the task (e.g., answering a different question or ignoring the core instruction).
-- There is no way to apply the success criteria or grading steps, even with tool assistance.
+  - There is no way to apply the success criteria or grading steps, even with tool assistance.
   
-You MUST NOT request human review just because:
+  You MUST NOT request human review just because:
-- A formal rubric is missing. You must assess against the task description directly.
+  - A formal rubric is missing. You must assess against the task description directly.
-- External tools (e.g., spell checkers, rubric scorers) are unavailable. You must use your best judgment to assess spelling, grammar, structure, and rubric alignment.
+  - External tools (e.g., spell checkers, rubric scorers) are unavailable. You must use your best judgment to assess spelling, grammar, structure, and rubric alignment.
-- The student's writing contains normal age-appropriate mistakes, informal language, or minor issues.
+  - The student's writing contains normal age-appropriate mistakes, informal language, or minor issues.
   
-IMPORTANT:
+  IMPORTANT:
-You must not claim that tools are unavailable or broken unless a tool call explicitly fails with an error. If a tool call fails, you must describe the failure clearly, then continue grading using your best judgment. You must never escalate to human review just because a tool call failed. Failed, missing, or partial tool results are not valid reasons to avoid grading.
+  If a tool call fails, you must continue grading using your best professional judgment. Tool failures are normal and are not a valid reason to request human review.
   
-If a submission is too short, vague, off-topic, or demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the task — even if it is grammatically correct — you must request human review.
+  You must evaluate the submission manually, even if rubric analysis, spelling, or grammar checking tools are unavailable.
   
-Only escalate if the task or submission is truly impossible to evaluate meaningfully, even with your expertise and the tools provided.
+  You MUST NOT escalate to human review just because of uncertainty about:
+  - Spelling
+  - Grammar
+  - Alignment with specific rubric details
+  - Missing tool outputs
   
-Otherwise, proceed confidently with grading using the rubric, your judgment, and available tools.
+  If the submission is on-topic, detailed, intelligible, and attempts to respond meaningfully to the task, you must grade it manually.
   
-If and only if human review is truly required, respond with:
+  Only escalate if the submission itself is incoherent, nonsensical, off-topic, or so vague that no meaningful evaluation is possible — even using your best human-like judgment.
   
-{
+  Otherwise, proceed confidently with grading using the rubric, your judgment, and available tools.
+  
+  If and only if human review is truly required, respond with:
+  
+  {
 	"grade": "HUMAN_REVIEW_REQUIRED",
-  "reasoning": "<Explain why. Do not mention tool errors unless an actual tool failure occurred.>"
+	"reasoning": "<Explain why. Do not mention tool errors unless an actual tool failure occurred and it prevents understanding of the submission.>"
-}
+  }
   
-EXAMPLES:
+  EXAMPLES:
   
-✅ Human review IS appropriate:
+  ✅ Human review IS appropriate:
-- Task: “Write about your favorite historical figure.”
+  - Task: “Write about your favorite historical figure.”
-- Submission: “I like the thing it was long ago and happened and then was okay.”
+  - Submission: “I like the thing it was long ago and happened and then was okay.”
-- Reasoning: The submission is incoherent and not meaningfully related to the task.
+  - Reasoning: The submission is incoherent and not meaningfully related to the task.
   
-✅ Human review IS appropriate:
+  ✅ Human review IS appropriate:
-- Task: “Name a dog.”
+  - Task: “Name a dog.”
-- Submission: “I like the colour red.”
+  - Submission: “I like the colour red.”
-- Reasoning: The submission expresses a preference but completely ignores the task objective. It cannot be evaluated meaningfully and reflects a misunderstanding.
+  - Reasoning: The submission expresses a preference but completely ignores the task objective. It cannot be evaluated meaningfully and reflects a misunderstanding.
   
-✅ Human review IS appropriate:
+  ✅ Human review IS appropriate:
-- Task: “Name a dog.”
+  - Task: “Name a dog.”
-- Submission: “A”
+  - Submission: “A”
-- Reasoning: The submission is technically on-topic but so minimal that it cannot be evaluated or scored in a meaningful way.
+  - Reasoning: The submission is technically on-topic but so minimal that it cannot be evaluated or scored in a meaningful way.
   
-❌ Human review is NOT appropriate:
+  ❌ Human review is NOT appropriate:
-- Task: “Write a persuasive paragraph about school uniforms.”
+  - Task: “Write a persuasive paragraph about school uniforms.”
-- Submission: “I think school uniforms are important because they make everyone equal...”
+  - Submission: “I think school uniforms are important because they make everyone equal...”
-- Reasoning: The task and submission are both clear and evaluatable without a rubric.
+  - Reasoning: The task and submission are both clear and evaluatable without a rubric.
+  
+  Respond ONLY with the JSON object, with no preamble or explanation.`;
 
-Respond ONLY with the JSON object, with no preamble or explanation.`;
 	return buildBaseGradingPrompt({
 		task: safeTask,
 		submission: safeSubmission,