Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

great-expectations

Authors Great Expectations (GX Core) ExpectationSuites, builds ValidationDefinitions and Checkpoints, runs validation against tabular batches, and parses the JSON result for CI gating. Use when the user works with Great Expectations on Pandas, SQL, or Spark data.

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 (2)

  • SKILL.md7.6 KB
  • .tessl-plugin/plugin.json397 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

great-expectations

Overview

GX Core is the modern Python library for programmatic data validation workflows. The shape is: DataSource → DataAsset → BatchDefinition → ExpectationSuite → ValidationDefinition → Checkpoint (gx-overview). This skill covers authoring expectations, running them via a ValidationDefinition or Checkpoint, parsing the JSON result, and gating CI on it.

When to use

  • The repo imports great_expectations (Python).
  • The user asks about ExpectColumn*, ExpectationSuite, Checkpoint, Data Docs, or gx.get_context().
  • A pipeline needs row-level / column-level assertions on Pandas, SQL, or Spark data with a programmatic interface (rather than a YAML-only config like Soda).
  • A CI workflow needs to gate a run on a validation result and surface failures in Data Docs or Slack.

Authoring expectations

The four key objects to compose (gx-overview):

  1. DataSource - represents a connection to a data store (Pandas / SQL / Spark / files).
  2. DataAsset - a collection of records inside a DataSource (e.g. a table, a directory of partitioned files).
  3. BatchDefinition - slices a DataAsset into validatable batches (whole table, partition, dataframe).
  4. ExpectationSuite - a named collection of Expectation objects that describe what the data should look like.

Expectations themselves come from the gxe namespace (create-an-expectation):

import great_expectations as gx
from great_expectations import expectations as gxe

context = gx.get_context()

suite = context.suites.add(gx.ExpectationSuite(name="orders_suite"))

# Column-level expectations
suite.add_expectation(gxe.ExpectColumnValuesToNotBeNull(column="order_id"))
suite.add_expectation(gxe.ExpectColumnValuesToBeUnique(column="order_id"))
suite.add_expectation(
    gxe.ExpectColumnValuesToBeBetween(
        column="discount_percent", min_value=0, max_value=100
    )
)
suite.add_expectation(
    gxe.ExpectColumnValuesToBeInSet(
        column="status",
        value_set=["placed", "shipped", "completed", "returned"],
    )
)

# Table-level expectations
suite.add_expectation(gxe.ExpectTableRowCountToBeBetween(min_value=1, max_value=10_000_000))

The full expectation gallery (column-, table-, multi-column-, and custom expectations) is browsable at greatexpectations.io/expectations.

Running

Option A - ValidationDefinition (single-suite, single-batch)

A ValidationDefinition binds one BatchDefinition to one ExpectationSuite. Calling .run() validates and returns a JSON-shaped result whose results list reports each expectation's outcome (run-validation-definition):

validation_definition = context.validation_definitions.get("orders_validation")

# batch_parameters maps to the underlying BatchDefinition's keys
result = validation_definition.run(batch_parameters={"year": "2026"})
print(result.success)       # bool - True only if every expectation passed

batch_parameters keys depend on how the BatchDefinition was authored: {"dataframe": df} for a Pandas runtime asset, {"year": "...", "month": "..."} for partitioned data, etc. (run-validation-definition).

Option B - Checkpoint (multi-suite + actions)

A Checkpoint runs one or more ValidationDefinitions and triggers Actions on the result. Actions live in great_expectations.checkpoint; built-ins include UpdateDataDocsAction (regenerates the Data Docs static site) and SlackNotificationAction (alerts on failure) - all action class names end with *Action (checkpoint-actions):

import great_expectations as gx
from great_expectations.checkpoint import (
    SlackNotificationAction,
    UpdateDataDocsAction,
)

context = gx.get_context()
validation_definitions = [context.validation_definitions.get("orders_validation")]

action_list = [
    SlackNotificationAction(
        name="alert_on_failure",
        slack_token="${VALIDATION_SLACK_WEBHOOK}",
        slack_channel="${VALIDATION_SLACK_CHANNEL}",
        notify_on="failure",
        show_failed_expectations=True,
    ),
    UpdateDataDocsAction(name="refresh_data_docs"),
]

checkpoint = gx.Checkpoint(
    name="orders_checkpoint",
    validation_definitions=validation_definitions,
    actions=action_list,
    result_format={"result_format": "COMPLETE"},
)

context.checkpoints.add(checkpoint)
checkpoint.run()

result_format controls how much detail the Validation Result carries. Documented values include SUMMARY (default) and COMPLETE - use COMPLETE when downstream tooling needs the failing rows / unexpected-values list (checkpoint-actions).

Parsing the result

validation_definition.run() (and the per-validation entries on a Checkpoint result) returns a JSON-shaped object with at least (run-validation-definition):

FieldMeaning
successBoolean - True only if every expectation in the suite passed.
resultsList of per-expectation outcomes (each has success, the expectation type, and a summary block describing the failure).

Triage script:

result = validation_definition.run()
if not result.success:
    for r in result.results:
        if not r.success:
            # r.expectation_config has the expectation type / kwargs
            # r.result has the unexpected_count / unexpected_percent
            print(r.expectation_config.type, r.result)

When result_format: COMPLETE, each r.result block additionally carries unexpected_index_list (Pandas) or unexpected_value_counts, which lets the gate report the offending rows by id rather than just a count.

CI integration

The minimal pattern is: gx.get_context() from a repo-checked-in GX project, run a Checkpoint, exit non-zero on not result.success. Use UpdateDataDocsAction so the rendered HTML report is uploaded as a build artifact for human triage.

# scripts/run_gx_gate.py
import sys
import great_expectations as gx

context = gx.get_context()
checkpoint = context.checkpoints.get("orders_checkpoint")
result = checkpoint.run()

if not result.success:
    sys.exit(1)
# .github/workflows/data-quality.yml (excerpt)
- name: Run GX checkpoint
  run: python scripts/run_gx_gate.py

- name: Upload Data Docs
  if: always()
  uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4
  with:
    name: gx-data-docs
    path: gx/uncommitted/data_docs/local_site/

if: always() is required so the Data Docs upload survives a failing checkpoint - that's exactly when you need them for triage.

References

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