la-chancla

No me hagas ir por la chancla

You asked for the strict pass. It runs on this work, here, now.

Rule

This is a self-contained strict review of one named piece of work — the task, change, plan, release, or invariant the user pointed at when invoking. It runs the ten checks below itself, inline, in this turn, and returns findings ranked as BLOCKER or WARNING. The standard is exacting, and it is a standard, not a punishment: every finding names a location and the smallest correction that clears it.

Three things this skill is not. Stated first, because assuming otherwise makes it unimplementable:

• Not a session mode. It reviews the work named at invocation and then it is over. It does not stay switched on and does not make later turns stricter.
• Not a mechanism over other skills. Skills share no runtime and no state, so this one cannot raise a sibling's threshold or reach into a skill that is not loaded. Every check below is this skill's own work, performed here.
• Not a counter. It cannot track warnings across a session. Repetition inside this review is worth naming; anything beyond it is not something this skill can know.

A blocker stops the scoped work. You do not continue past one, work around it, or carry it as a note. It is corrected, or the user consciously waives it after you state what they are waiving. Warnings do not stop anything; they are reported and left with the user to decide.

Procedure

1. State the scope in one line — the exact change, files, plan step, or invariant under review, and where it starts and ends. Everything outside that line is out of scope for this review; say so rather than expanding it.

2. Run all ten checks against that scope. Each gets a verdict: pass, WARNING, or BLOCKER. A check you could not evaluate is not a pass — report it as unevaluated and say what you would need.

   Check	It fails when
   Scope	The work does more or less than what was asked; unrequested changes ride along; a stated requirement is silently unmet
   Evidence	A completion or success claim has no quoted command, output, or artifact behind it
   Safety and trust boundaries	Externally supplied or model-supplied content is treated as trusted; credentials or secrets sit in the diff; a new network, filesystem, or execution surface appears unannounced
   Consent	Something destructive, irreversible, or outside the agreed scope was done — or is about to be — without one clear question asked and answered first
   Recoverability	There is no verified way back: no checked backup, no tested revert, no rollback path that anyone has actually confirmed
   Failure handling	Errors are swallowed, retried without limit, or reported as success; timeouts and partial failure are unhandled; the unhappy path is untested
   Naming and contracts	A name misdescribes what the thing does; a signature, schema, flag, or return shape changed without updating callers or naming the break
   Efficiency	The same file, fetch, computation, or paid call is repeated when the result was already in hand. Proportion, not micro-optimization
   Cleanup	Scratch files, debug logging, .only / .skip, commented-out code, temporary flags, or dead branches are left behind
   Handoff readiness	Someone who was not here cannot tell what changed, why, what it does not do, and how to check it