本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

data-quality-conventions

Reference catalog of data-quality conventions - when to choose dbt-tests vs Great Expectations vs Soda, column-level vs table-level coverage, severity tiering, SLA and freshness conventions, and common anti-patterns to avoid. Use when designing coverage for a new data product or auditing an existing one.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qaスター 13(GitHub 13 + cccskills 0)

実行スコア 未検証

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md7.7 KB
  • .tessl-plugin/plugin.json445 B

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

data-quality-conventions

A reference catalog for how to design data-quality coverage. Pairs with the engine-specific skills (dbt-testing, great-expectations, soda-checks) - those tell you the how of running checks; this tells you which checks and where.

Engine selection

Use this matrix to pick an engine before authoring any checks. Mixing engines is fine in a large platform - the data-quality-gate skill exists precisely to reconcile their outputs.

Use casePreferred engineWhy
Repo is a dbt project; assertions live next to modelsdbt-testsTests run as part of dbt build, share the project's adapter, and live in the same schema.yml as the column docs.
Python ELT, programmatic suite generation, runtime data connectorsGreat ExpectationsFirst-class Pandas / SQL / Spark batches; suites composable in Python.
YAML-only checks against a SQL warehouse, cross-team observability via Soda CloudSodaSodaCL is a focused DSL; no Python or dbt required.
Mix of warehouse + non-warehouse sourcesdbt + GX or Soda + GXUse dbt or Soda for warehouse coverage; GX for non-warehouse (file uploads, Spark jobs, ad-hoc Pandas).
Brand-new project, no preferencedbt-tests if you already have dbt; otherwise Soda for YAML simplicityLowest cognitive overhead.

Anti-pattern: running all three engines on the same dataset for the same checks "for redundancy" - duplicate checks shift the failure cost to humans triaging three CI signals for the same root cause.

Column-level vs table-level coverage

Authoring tip: start at the column level for the keys and required fields, then add table-level invariants. A reasonable starter set for a new data product:

LayerCheckJustification
Column (PK)not_null, uniqueCatches the largest classes of ingestion bugs.
Column (FK)relationships to the referenced tableCatches out-of-order loads.
Column (enum)accepted_values for low-cardinality stringsCatches new states added upstream without coordination.
Column (numeric)range / between for business-bounded columnsCatches arithmetic errors and unit mismatches.
Column (date)not_null on required timestampsCatches dropped fields.
Tablerow_count > 0 (and an upper bound if known)Catches catastrophic ingestion drop or runaway duplicate.
Tablefreshness on the load-time timestampCatches "pipeline didn't run" - the most common silent failure.

For numeric columns, prefer business-bounded ranges (e.g. discount 0 - 100 %) over distribution-bounded ranges (e.g. mean ± 3σ). Statistical ranges drift with seasonality and produce false positives at scale; the shop should treat distribution monitoring as a separate concern from data-quality assertions.

Severity tiering

Three tiers cover most needs:

TierBehavior on failureUse for
errorBlock the pipeline / CIInvariants the business depends on (PK uniqueness, FK integrity, required fields).
warnSurface in the report, do not blockDistribution shifts, soft constraints, new unfamiliar checks during ramp-up.
infoLog only, never alertCoverage telemetry (e.g. "70 % of customer rows had email populated").

In dbt, severity comes from a severity: config block; in GX, from suite-level metadata; in SodaCL, from warn: / fail: blocks for schema and from the alert configuration syntax for other checks. Each engine's specifics are in its SKILL.md.

Anti-pattern: every check at error. A pipeline that blocks on a single distribution drift becomes "the check that always fails" within a quarter; the team eventually disables the gate entirely. Reserve error for invariants the business will actually halt to fix.

Freshness and SLAs

A freshness check is the highest-leverage assertion in most pipelines - it catches the "pipeline didn't run" failure mode that no row-level check can detect (because there are no rows to check).

Conventions:

  • One freshness check per pipeline output table, on the latest load-time / processed-at column.
  • The freshness threshold is 2× the expected cadence. A daily pipeline gets freshness < 2d; an hourly pipeline gets < 2h. This avoids false alarms from a single late run while still catching a stuck pipeline.
  • Freshness is error-severity by convention - a stuck pipeline blocks every downstream business decision, so a noisy alert is the right behavior.

Naming and ownership

  • Names mirror the assertion. not_null_orders_email (dbt-style) or missing_count(email) = 0 (SodaCL) is self-documenting; assertion_42 is not.
  • Every test has an owner. dbt: a meta: block under the column or model with owner: @team-handle. GX: suite-level metadata. SodaCL: the dataset's meta: block. Failure routing uses these to send each failure to its owner.

Common anti-patterns

Anti-patternWhy it failsFix
Hard-coded distributions ("revenue between $X and $Y")Drifts with seasonality; ages out within monthsBound with a moving window or replace with a separate distribution-monitoring tool.
not_null on every columnSome columns are legitimately nullable; floods the failure list with non-actionable noiseAnnotate nullable columns explicitly in schema.yml and skip the test.
One mega-check that asserts an entire row at onceHard to triage; a single failure does not tell you which field brokeSplit into one check per invariant; aggregate at the gate level via the data-quality-gate.
Reaching into upstream raw data inside a checkCouples the assertion to source schema; breaks on every upstream renameTest the curated model output, not the raw source.
Same check authored in dbt and GX and SodaThree failure signals for one root cause; triage cost triplesPick one engine per check; use the gate skill to unify cross-engine coverage.
Severity error on a freshly added checkFirst false positive disables the gate by social conventionLand new checks at warn for two cycles, then promote once they're seen to be stable.

When to retire a check

A check is healthy when it fails roughly once per quarter on a real issue. Two failure modes warrant retirement:

  • Always passing - the check costs scan time and bugs in it go undetected; consider whether the invariant moved upstream and the check is now redundant.
  • Always failing on the same root cause - the team has learned to ignore it; either fix the root cause or relax the threshold to a level that catches new regressions.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

コメント

ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。

まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。

送信するとすぐに公開されます。メールアドレスや電話番号などの個人情報は書かないでください。URL は 2 つまでです。

0 / 1000 文字

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

同じリポジトリのスキル

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

testland のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する