A real repository case study

# Rules that
survive the prompt.

Prompts ask for behavior. Repositories preserve it. The interview project combines written context, reusable skills, executable checks, commit hooks, and independent review so the rule is still present when the conversation is gone.

CASE / NETCRACKER interview 8 skills · 3 agents · 4 enforcement layers
THE SHORT VERSION A prompt is advice for one run. A repository rule is reusable context plus an executable boundary.
Enforcement pipeline select a checkpoint

From intent to evidence

## Five places
a rule can hold.

Not every rule belongs in a hook. Put guidance where an agent can discover it, deterministic policy in a command, cheap checks at commit time, and independent judgment at review.

→
→
→
→
Project-local skills procedures born from repeated friction

Small instruction packages

## Teach the trap.
Name the trigger.

These skills are not downloaded magic. They are repository-specific procedures under `.agents/skills/`, distilled from mistakes, commands, and architectural decisions that kept recurring.

Concrete examples open the source, then adapt
CLI RATCHET

### Debt may go down.
Never silently up.

    pnpm check:ui
    # raw buttons
    # swallowed catches
    # pages without h1
    # hardcoded colours

Read the checker →
HUSKY / PRE-COMMIT

### Fast checks before history.

    pnpm exec lint-staged
    node scripts/check-ui-contract.mjs

Read the hook →
COMMIT MESSAGE

### Intent has a grammar.

    pnpm exec commitlint --edit $1

    feat: add interview timer
    fix(api): scope session query

Read commitlint config →
INDEPENDENT REVIEW

### A second reader checks intent.

    .pr-review.json
    ├── focus
    ├── exclude_paths
    ├── languages
    └── instructions

Read review policy →
COPY / ADAPT

## Ask your agent to map the enforcement stack.

Use this in the interview repository or adapt the path names to another project.

GO DEEPER Read the implementation, not just this summary.