agentic-os
AFaffaan-m/ECC278k4,046 new stars in the last 7 days
Assess whether structured data, query results, dashboards, or analytical evidence are trustworthy enough to use. Use when the task is to check data quality, reconcile conflicting sources or metric definitions, or decide whether evidence is safe to cite.
Use $design-kpis when the work is to define or redesign a KPI framework, metric definition, guardrail, or target rather than checking whether existing data is trustworthy.
Use $validate-data when the work is to QA an analysis, chart, report, or recommendation rather than investigate the underlying data.
Assess whether a dataset is trustworthy enough for analysis, modeling, dashboards, experiments, or downstream pipelines. Start with the intended use and grain, run the highest-value checks for the data shape, and report concrete evidence, analytical risk, likely causes, and the smallest useful remediation or automated test.
Clarify the quality question and operating context.
Establish what the dataset represents, the intended unit of analysis, the downstream use, whether the user cares about raw ingestion quality, transformed-model quality, or both, and the comparison baseline such as prior weeks, prior schema, or a trusted reference table. Identify expected grain, primary keys or candidate keys, important date columns, timezone assumptions, domain rules, allowed values, and business thresholds. If context is missing, infer cautiously and label assumptions.
Choose an inspectable analysis path.
When checks require SQL or Python, default to a companion notebook so the user can inspect the exact code behind the findings. Use $jupyter-notebooks when a dedicated notebook scaffold or refactor workflow would help. For queryable tables, use ~~structured_data to confirm schema, grain, sample rows, and query rules through the relevant source connector before heavier checks. Use ~~operations_logs for freshness and lineage when those checks matter.
Build a compact profile.
Start with row count, column count, column names and types, candidate keys, duplicate rates on likely identifiers, min/max timestamps for relevant date columns, null rates, distinct counts for likely categorical columns, and basic numeric summaries for measure columns. Confirm grain before interpreting anomalies; many apparent quality problems are mixed-grain data, partial backfills, late-arriving data, or duplicated joins.
Run core quality checks.
Select checks that match the dataset and task. Default to the most relevant checks across completeness, uniqueness, validity, consistency, integrity, timeliness, volume, and shape. Compare rates, not just counts, and segment by time, source, country, platform, model version, or other key dimensions when that helps distinguish real issues from expected variation.
Run shape-specific checks.
Adapt the checks to the data shape:
Run temporal and distribution checks when history exists.
Prioritize temporal diagnostics when the user mentions "after X date", "suddenly", "recently", or "only started appearing". Check first-seen dates, last-seen dates, daily or weekly null-rate trends, duplicate-rate trends, row count trends, category-share shifts, distribution drift, and change points around launches, migrations, incidents, model changes, or backfills.
Investigate analytical risks and likely causes.
Tie each issue to the downstream risk: broken trusted analysis, biased decisions, broken joins, stale dashboards, incorrect experiments, leakage, unreliable model features, or misleading segments. When possible, identify whether the issue is isolated to a source, segment, partition, time window, release, migration, backfill, or upstream pipeline change.
Recommend fixes or automated tests.
Recommend the smallest set of follow-up fixes, monitoring, or automated tests that would materially reduce risk. Suggest automation only when the rule is stable and worth maintaining. Include or save the notebook/query path when code produced the findings.
'', 'unknown', 'n/a', 0, or -1.is_cancelled = false with a non-null cancelled_at.Do not dump raw profiling output without interpretation. Tie each finding to an analytical risk and likely impact.
For stakeholder-facing data-quality work, pass the completed findings to $build-report by default so the runtime produces a portable report in the selected format. Do not stop at profiling output or a notebook unless the user explicitly requested a quick inline answer or another primary artifact. The structure below defines the report content.
Structure the response with:
For each finding, include:
When code was used, include or save a notebook containing the key SQL and Python checks and make the notebook path easy to find.
AFaffaan-m/ECC278k4,046 new stars in the last 7 days
GAgarrytan/gstack136k883 new stars in the last 7 days
ADaddyosmani/agent-skills106k3,628 new stars in the last 7 days
NEnexu-io/open-design101k1,126 new stars in the last 7 days
NEnexu-io/open-design101k1,126 new stars in the last 7 days
THthedotmack/claude-mem100k3,024 new stars in the last 7 days