Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

data-quality-gate

Builds a release-readiness gate for a data pipeline by gathering check results from one or more engines (dbt, Great Expectations, Soda), applying severity-aware pass/fail thresholds, and emitting a single go / no-go decision with per-check rationale. Use when authoring a CI step that must fail the build when data quality drops below thresholds.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

testland/qa13 stars(GitHub 13 + cccskills 0)

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (3)

  • SKILL.md6.9 KB
  • .tessl-plugin/plugin.json479 B
  • references/worked-example.md3.0 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

data-quality-gate

Overview

The three engines (dbt-testing, great-expectations, soda-checks) each produce their own per-check output: dbt writes run_results.json (dbt-run-results), Great Expectations returns a JSON result with a success flag and a results list (gx-run-validation-definition), and Soda emits a per-check pass/fail summary in stdout (and to Soda Cloud) (sodacl-overview).

This skill builds a single release-readiness gate that consumes those heterogeneous outputs, applies severity-aware thresholds, and emits one go / no-go decision the CI pipeline can act on. The skill is deliberately engine-agnostic at the surface so a project can mix engines (e.g. dbt for transformation tests + GX for ingestion validation + Soda for cross-team observability) and still ship a single gate.

When to use

  • A pipeline runs more than one data-quality engine and needs a unified pass/fail summary (instead of one CI job per engine).
  • Some checks are blocking (severity: error) and others should warn but not stop the pipeline (severity: warn) - the gate must distinguish.
  • The team wants a structured artifact (JSON / markdown table) for PR comments, dashboards, or post-mortems - not just exit 1.
  • A migration is rolling out new checks; the gate needs to honor a per-check "ratchet" (existing failures grandfathered, new failures block).

If a project uses only one engine and does not need severity tiering, prefer that engine's native CI integration directly (see the relevant skill's "CI integration" section) - this gate adds machinery you do not need.

Step 1 - Identify your sources

Enumerate every check-emitting engine the gate must consume. For each:

EngineResult artifactSchema
dbttarget/run_results.json.results[] with unique_id, status, failures, message (dbt-run-results)
GXPython object from validation_definition.run() or checkpoint.run() - has success: bool plus results[] of per-expectation outcomes (gx-run-validation-definition)
Sodastdout summary from soda scan; non-zero exit on any failure (sodacl-overview)
Othercustom - must be flattened into the unified shape below

Persist each engine's raw artifact as a CI build artifact (matching the pattern from each skill's "CI integration" section) so the gate input is reproducible and triageable.

Step 2 - Define the unified check record

Flatten every engine's result into one record shape:

{
  "check_id":     "dbt.test.orders.unique_order_id",
  "engine":       "dbt",
  "subject":      "orders.order_id",
  "status":       "fail",
  "severity":     "error",
  "failures":     12,
  "message":      "12 unique-key violations",
  "ratchet":      false,
  "owner":        "@data-platform"
}
FieldSource
check_idengine-prefixed unique ID (dbt.test.<unique_id>, gx.<suite>.<expectation_type>, soda.<dataset>.<check_text>).
enginedbt / gx / soda / custom.
subject<dataset>.<column> or <dataset> for table-level checks.
statuspass / fail / warn / error (engine-specific values normalized).
severityerror (gate-blocking) or warn (gate-tolerable). Source: dbt severity: config; GX meta block convention; Soda warn: / fail: blocks.
failuresrow count for row-level checks; 0/1 for boolean checks.
messagehuman-readable failure message.
ratchetoptional - true if the failure existed before the ratchet date and is grandfathered.
owneroptional - team/handle responsible for the dataset.

Step 3 - Apply the gate decision rule

Pseudocode:

def gate_decision(records, *, allow_warn_failures=True):
    blockers = [
        r for r in records
        if r["status"] in ("fail", "error")
        and r["severity"] == "error"
        and not r.get("ratchet", False)
    ]
    warnings = [
        r for r in records
        if (r["status"] in ("fail", "error") and r["severity"] == "warn")
        or r["status"] == "warn"
    ]
    return {
        "verdict": "no-go" if blockers else "go",
        "blocker_count": len(blockers),
        "warning_count": len(warnings),
        "blockers": blockers,
        "warnings": warnings,
    }

The default is strict-but-warn-tolerant: any non-ratcheted error-severity failure blocks; warn-severity failures and ratcheted records show in the report but do not block.

For a stricter mode (no warn tolerance), set allow_warn_failures=False and treat warning_count > 0 as a blocker.

Step 4 - Emit the artifact

The gate produces a markdown summary suitable for both $GITHUB_STEP_SUMMARY and Soda Cloud / Slack pipelines:

# Data Quality Gate - verdict: NO-GO

**Blockers: 2**

| Engine | Subject              | Check                  | Failures | Owner            |
|--------|----------------------|------------------------|---------:|------------------|
| dbt    | orders.order_id      | unique                 |       12 | @data-platform   |
| gx     | orders.discount_pct  | ExpectColumnValuesToBeBetween | 4 | @analytics-eng   |

**Warnings: 1**

| Engine | Subject     | Check               | Failures | Owner       |
|--------|-------------|---------------------|---------:|-------------|
| soda   | customers   | row_count > 0       |        0 | @platform   |

Plus a JSON sibling for downstream consumers:

{
  "verdict": "no-go",
  "blocker_count": 2,
  "warning_count": 1,
  "blockers": [...],
  "warnings": [...]
}

A no-go verdict exits non-zero so the CI pipeline halts.

Worked example

A full end-to-end collector (scripts/run_quality_gate.py) that reads each engine's artifact, flattens it into the unified record shape, applies the Step 3 gate decision, and wires the gate into CI is in references/worked-example.md.

References

  • dbt-testing/SKILL.md - dbt run_results.json schema and field meanings.
  • great-expectations/SKILL.md - GX result object shape and result_format levels.
  • soda-checks/SKILL.md - Soda CLI invocation and stdout summary format.
  • dbt-run-results - canonical run_results.json schema.
  • gx-run-validation-definition - GX validation_definition.run() return shape.
  • sodacl-overview - SodaCL check vocabulary.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Builds a CI gate that fails the build on **new** WCAG / a11y violations introduced by a PR while grandfathering pre-existing violations on a per-rule / per-page baseline. Aggregates verdicts from axe-core / pa11y / Lighthouse a11y / WAVE / IBM Equal Access scans. Use when a project has accumulated a11y debt and a strict "zero violations" gate would block every PR - the ratchet pattern lets the team ship while preventing regressions.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

testland/qa13Updated Oct 20, 2026

Workflow skill that builds an A/B-test validity checklist from an experiment proposal, walking the canonical design-correctness gates - pre-registered OEC/power/guardrails, randomization unit + SRM check, assignment integrity, telemetry, peeking discipline, novelty/primacy, post-experiment SRM re-check - into a per-experiment checklist + sign-off form. Use when launching, auditing, or governing an experiment. For pitfall mechanics (guardrails, peeking) see experiment-results-interpreter's references; to read an already-valid result use experiment-results-interpreter; for per-SDK harness tests use experiment-sdk-testing - this gates DESIGN, not SDK code.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

testland/qa13Updated Oct 20, 2026

The single install-flow skill: the reference contract for the PWA install flow (installability gate fields, `beforeinstallprompt` handshake, per-platform paths - Android WebAPK / iOS Share menu / Firefox no-op - and the `display-mode` post-install signal, in references/install-flow-reference.md) plus the build-an-X workflow that emits the Add-to-Home-Screen suite. Walks the four-stage timeline, emitting one test per gate cell per [web.dev/articles/install-criteria][install-criteria], the deferred-prompt → `prompt()` → `userChoice` chain per [web.dev/articles/customize-install][customize-install], the iOS Safari manual-metadata branch (`apple-touch-icon`) per [web.dev/learn/pwa/installation][learn-pwa], and the post-install `(display-mode: standalone)` MQ assertion. Output: a Playwright spec with per-stage cells plus a coverage matrix. Use when a PWA's manifest, icons, or install handler change, when install conversion drops at an unknown stage, or when triaging a flaky install assertion.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

testland/qa13Updated Oct 20, 2026

Build-an-X workflow that uses an LLM to map existing tests to spec sections - given a spec doc + the test suite, the LLM identifies which tests cover which sections, surfaces uncovered sections (gap), and recommends specific tests to add. Output is a coverage matrix per spec ID. Scope is mapping tests that already exist and naming the gaps, not authoring tests for new acceptance criteria. Use when a spec doc and a test suite both exist but nobody can say which requirements are actually covered - before a release sign-off, an audit, or a decision about where to spend the next round of test effort.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

testland/qa13Updated Oct 20, 2026

Generates tests from natural-language specs (acceptance criteria, user stories, requirements) using an LLM, with confidence scoring per test case (LLM self-assessment plus heuristics: assertion quality, naming, completeness), batching uncertain cases for human review, and integration with the team's existing test framework. Use when the user asks to generate unit tests from acceptance criteria, convert user stories to test cases, automate test creation from requirements, or augment a spec-driven test suite with AI-generated stubs that are then curated before merge.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

testland/qa13Updated Oct 20, 2026

Configures Allure Report (test-runner adapter install, `allure-results` directory wiring, `categories.json` for failure classification, `history-trend.json` retention via the copy-history-between-runs pattern), runs the Allure CLI to convert `allure-results` to a static HTML site, and uploads the report as a CI artifact. Use when the team needs richer test reporting than JUnit XML - step-level attachments, per-test history, retry tracking, and severity / epic / feature labeling across framework-agnostic adapters (pytest, Jest, JUnit, TestNG, NUnit, Mocha). As a rich static HTML report generator, it is the open-source alternative to the sunset ExtentReports (JVM/.NET per-test HTML narrative); for hosted cross-run flakiness analytics rather than a static per-run report use currents-integration.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

testland/qa13Updated Oct 20, 2026

See all skills by testland

Report a problem with this skill