Synthèse automatique
Conçoit la couche de surveillance de la qualité des données d'un pipeline de production : quels contrôles sur quels jeux de données, à quel étage du pipeline, avec quelle gravité, quel propriétaire et quelle action en cas d'échec.
Points forts
- Couvre les six dimensions (fraîcheur, complétude/volume, unicité, validité, cohérence et intégrité référentielle, dérive de distribution) et rattache chaque contrôle à un étage précis : ingestion, transformation ou serving.
- Exige pour chaque contrôle une gravité, un propriétaire et une action d'échec explicite (bloquer, mettre en quarantaine dans un emplacement reviewable, ou alerter sans bloquer), en excluant toute correction silencieuse.
- Produit des SLA de qualité par jeu de données et un routage d'incident, ce qui transforme les défauts de données en incidents typés plutôt qu'en découvertes fortuites.
- Délimite nettement son périmètre face aux données de test, à la télémétrie système, à la validation de sortie LLM et aux vérifications ponctuelles de migration.
Limites
- Livrable de conception seulement : le câblage effectif des alertes et des tableaux de bord est laissé à une autre compétence.
- Suppose que l'on connaisse déjà l'inventaire des jeux de données, la topologie du pipeline et l'historique des incidents pour être pertinent.
- Ne traite ni les données de test, ni la télémétrie système, ni la vérification d'une migration planifiée.
À utiliser quand des données erronées, périmées, dupliquées ou manquantes atteignent les utilisateurs, les rapports ou les modèles et que la détection repose encore sur « quelqu'un finit par le remarquer ».
À ne pas utiliser pour concevoir des données de test, surveiller la télémétrie système ou vérifier ponctuellement la correctude d'une migration.
Analyse de sécurité
SûrThe skill is a design-time instruction set for data-quality monitoring specifications. It declares no execution tools, contains no shell commands, network calls, file operations, or destructive actions. It explicitly avoids auto-fixing and only describes design deliverables (specs and policies).
Aucun point d'attention détecté
Comment cette analyse est faiteExemples
Our revenue dashboard dropped 40% yesterday because a third of the events never landed in the warehouse, and nobody noticed for two days. Design the data-quality monitors for the events table and the daily revenue model: which checks, at which pipeline stage, with what severity, owner and failure action.We're standing up an ingest → transform → serving pipeline for customer orders. Enumerate the data-quality checks we need across freshness, completeness, uniqueness, validity, referential integrity and distribution drift, and give each one a severity and a failure action.Define per-dataset quality SLAs for our core tables — orders fresh by 06:00, at least 99.5% of rows with valid foreign keys — plus a quarantine policy for rows that fail, and tell me who gets paged when each SLA is missed.name: data-quality-monitor-designer description: Design data-quality monitoring for production pipelines and stores — checks across the six dimensions (freshness, completeness/volume, uniqueness, validity, consistency/referential integrity, distribution drift), placed at the right pipeline stage (ingest, transform, serving), each with severity, an owner, and a failure action (block, quarantine to a reviewable location, or alert-and-pass — never silent auto-fix), plus per-dataset quality SLAs and incident routing. Produces the monitor spec and quarantine policy as design; alert/dashboard wiring is observability-operator and user-journey SLO targets stay with slo-reliability-architect. Use when bad, stale, or missing data keeps reaching users or models, when a warehouse/pipeline needs quality gates, or when nobody can say whether a dataset is trustworthy. Do NOT use for TEST data design (test-data-architect), system telemetry (observability-operator), or LLM output shape (structured-output-validator).
Data Quality Monitor Designer
Purpose
Systems monitor their services and stay blind to their data: the pipeline
runs green while a third of yesterday's rows never arrived, a join
silently fans out duplicates, and a upstream format change poisons every
downstream report. This skill designs the data-quality monitoring layer —
which checks, on which datasets, at which pipeline stage, with what
severity, owner, and failure action — so data problems surface as typed,
routed incidents instead of being discovered by the user who trusted the
number. It produces the monitor SPEC and the quarantine policy; it does
not wire alerts (that is observability-operator's implementation
surface) and it never designs checks that silently "fix" data.
Use When
- Use when: bad, stale, duplicated, or missing data keeps reaching users, reports, or models, and detection is currently "someone notices".
- Use when: a pipeline, warehouse, or critical dataset needs quality gates and nobody can enumerate what is checked today.
- Use when: defining per-dataset quality SLAs (freshness by 06:00, ≥99.5% rows with valid foreign keys) and what happens when they are missed.
- Use when: a data incident post-mortem asks "what monitor would have caught this?" and the answer needs designing, not guessing.
- Do NOT use when: the data in question is TEST data — deterministic
fixtures, factories, and seed hygiene are
test-data-architect; this skill watches production data. - Do NOT use when: the signals are system telemetry — latency, errors,
saturation, health checks are
observability-operator(implementation) andslo-reliability-architect(targets); this skill owns checks on the DATA CONTENT itself. - Do NOT use when: validating an LLM's response shape against a schema —
that is
structured-output-validator. - Do NOT use when: the failing thing is a migration's correctness during a
planned data move — one-time verification gates belong to
data-migration-runbook-author's runbook; this skill owns the STANDING monitors that outlive the move.
Inputs to Inspect
- The dataset inventory in scope: tables/topics/files, their producers, their downstream consumers (reports, features, models, exports), and which consumers make decisions on them.
- The pipeline topology: ingest points, transform stages, serving surfaces — where a check can physically run and how early a defect is catchable.
- Incident history: past data incidents (silent loss, duplication, drift, late arrival) — each one is a candidate check with a known severity.
- Existing checks and their gaps: constraint definitions in the store, ad-hoc assertion scripts, pipeline-native tests already present.
- Contract sources for validity rules: schema definitions, enum registries, business rules docs — what "valid" even means per field.
- The tenant dimension: whether quality must be judged per tenant (one tenant's feed failing while the aggregate looks fine).
Workflow
- Rank datasets by blast radius. For each dataset: who consumes it, what decision or feature breaks when it is wrong, and how long a defect goes unnoticed today. Monitor design effort follows this ranking — full six-dimension coverage for the critical few, freshness+volume floors for the long tail.
- Design checks per dimension, per dataset. For each critical
dataset, work the six dimensions and state each check concretely:
- Freshness: latest event/partition age vs an expected-by deadline.
- Completeness/volume: row/event counts vs a seasonal-aware expectation band, plus required-field null rates.
- Uniqueness: duplicate rate on declared keys (joins and replays are the usual injectors).
- Validity: type/format/enum/range conformance per field, sourced from the contract inputs, not invented.
- Consistency: referential integrity across stores, aggregate reconciliation (sum of parts vs reported total), cross-system counts.
- Drift: distribution shift on fields where meaning matters (categorical mix, numeric distribution) — flag, never auto-correct.
- Place each check at the earliest viable stage. Ingest-time checks stop poison at the door (schema/validity), transform-time checks catch what only exists post-join (uniqueness, consistency), serving-time checks guard what users actually read (freshness, reconciliation). State the placement and why.
- Assign severity and failure action per check. The action vocabulary is exactly three: block (pipeline stops; defect cannot pass), quarantine (offending rows diverted to a reviewable location with provenance; healthy rows proceed; quarantine has an owner and a drain SLA — mirroring DLQ discipline), alert-and-pass (data flows, humans notified). Silent correction — coercing, defaulting, dropping without a record — is not in the vocabulary.
- Define per-dataset quality SLAs. The consumer-facing promise:
freshness deadline, completeness floor, validity floor — each derived
from what the top consumer can tolerate, stated with its measurement
window. Where a journey-level SLO exists (
slo-reliability-architect), the data SLA feeds it rather than duplicating it. - Route incidents. Per dataset: who owns a red check (a named role,
not a channel), what the first diagnostic step is (the check's own
evidence: failing rows sample, expected-vs-actual counts), and where
quarantined data is reviewed. Alert wiring, dedup, and dashboards are
handed to
observability-operatoras an implementation package. - Design the monitor-as-code shape. Checks live versioned next to the pipeline they guard (declarative where the stack allows), with the convention stated: adding a dataset of class X requires its floor checks in the same change — a review-time rule, not tooling magic.
- Deliver the spec in the Output Format with coverage honestly stated: which datasets got full coverage, which got floors, which got nothing yet — an explicit residual list, not an implied "all".
Check catalogs per dimension, expectation-band guidance, and the quarantine-policy template: references/quality-dimension-catalog.md.
Output Format
DATA QUALITY MONITOR SPEC — <scope>
Datasets ranked: <N, by blast radius; coverage tier per dataset>
Per-dataset card:
<dataset>: consumers=<top consumers/decisions>
checks: <dimension → check, placement (ingest|transform|serving),
severity, action (block|quarantine|alert-and-pass)>
SLA: freshness=<deadline> completeness=<floor> validity=<floor> (window=<w>)
incident: owner=<role> first-diagnostic=<evidence the check emits>
Quarantine policy: <location, provenance fields, owner, drain SLA>
Tenant dimension: <per-tenant checks where aggregate masks single-tenant failure | n/a + why>
Handoffs: alert/dashboard wiring → observability-operator;
journey SLO targets → slo-reliability-architect (consumed, not set here)
Residual: <datasets/dimensions deliberately not covered yet>
Validation Checklist
- [ ] Every check names its dataset, dimension, placement, severity, owner, and one of the three failure actions — no check "just logs".
- [ ] No check silently mutates data: quarantine preserves offending rows with provenance; nothing coerces, defaults, or drops unrecorded.
- [ ] Validity rules cite a contract source (schema, enum registry, business rule) — none invented from sample data alone.
- [ ] Volume/drift checks use expectation bands aware of seasonality, not naive fixed thresholds guaranteed to false-positive.
- [ ] Quarantine has an owner and a drain SLA — it is not a write-only graveyard.
- [ ] Per-tenant blindness considered: aggregate-level checks that a single tenant's failure cannot trip are named as such.
- [ ] Coverage residual is explicit — datasets left unmonitored are listed, not implied covered.
- [ ] The spec hands wiring to observability-operator rather than embedding alert-platform configuration.
Gotchas
- Green pipelines, rotten data: orchestration success says the job ran, not that the data is right. Quality checks assert on CONTENT — never accept "the DAG succeeded" as a quality signal.
- Fixed thresholds rot: "alert if rows < 10,000" false-positives every holiday and misses a 30% drop on the biggest day. Bands come from history with seasonality, and get reviewed like code.
- Silent coercion is data loss with better manners: a transform that defaults bad values to zero destroys the evidence AND the number. Quarantine exists so correction is a reviewed decision.
- Aggregate checks mask per-tenant failure: total volume looks fine while one integration's feed died. The tenant dimension check exists for the datasets where that matters.
- Duplicates arrive at joins and replays, not ingest: uniqueness checked only at the door misses fan-out introduced mid-pipeline. Placement follows where the defect is created.
- Drift checks on the wrong fields alarm-fatigue everyone: monitor distribution only where shift changes meaning (model features, pricing inputs), not every column.
- Reconciliation needs a lag budget: comparing system A to system B before B's sync window closes manufactures false mismatches — state the comparison point, not just the comparison.
- Quality SLAs without consumers are decoration: a freshness deadline nobody depends on will be ignored the first week it is red. Every SLA cites the consumer that needs it.
Stop Conditions
- Asked to design checks that auto-repair failing data (coerce, default, drop, "clean up") as the failure action → refuse silent correction; offer quarantine + reviewed repair, and record any human decision to auto-correct a specific field as an explicit, logged transform, not a monitor behavior.
- Validity rules cannot be sourced — no schema, no contract, and the owner cannot say what valid means for a critical field → stop for that dataset; checks invented from sampled data enshrine today's defects as the standard.
- The request is really "make the pipeline stop failing" (orchestration reliability, retries, infra) → route to the pipeline/reliability surface; adding quality checks will not fix a broken scheduler.
- Monitoring would require reading data classified as restricted (PII
fields under minimization rules from
pii-lifecycle-designer) and no privacy-preserving check form exists (counts, hashes, null rates) → halt and surface the conflict rather than designing checks that widen access. - Asked to also wire the alerts/dashboards live → decline that slice;
hand the implementation package to
observability-operator(which is manual-invocation for live config).
Supporting Files
- references/quality-dimension-catalog.md — per-dimension check catalog with concrete forms, expectation-band guidance, placement table, and the quarantine-policy template.
evals/evals.json— behavior cases including the seasonality-band edge and the silent-auto-fix refusal.evals/trigger-evals.json— discrimination againstobservability-operator,test-data-architect,structured-output-validator, anddata-migration-runbook-author.
Du fichier au premier essai
Le téléchargement contient exactement le contenu affiché sur cette fiche. Cette copie peut différer de la dernière version du dépôt source.
Consulter la source et ses fichiers annexesCe téléchargement contient uniquement SKILL.md. Les scripts, références, modèles et dépendances éventuels ne sont pas inclus. Récupérez les fichiers nécessaires depuis la source en conservant leur arborescence avant de poursuivre.
1. Télécharger le fichier
Télécharger SKILL.mdDepuis la racine d’un projet de test, enregistrez le fichier sous .skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu/SKILL.md, ou utilisez la commande suivante. Ce dossier sert à examiner la skill avant son installation.
Commande pour macOS/Linux ou WSL : un shell POSIX et curl sont nécessaires. Sous Windows sans WSL, utilisez le bouton de téléchargement et créez le dossier manuellement.
mkdir -p '.skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu' && curl --fail --show-error --location 'https://skills-guides.com/api/skills/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu/download' --output '.skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu/SKILL.md.part' && mv '.skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu/SKILL.md.part' '.skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu/SKILL.md'2. Vérifier les prérequis
Lisez SKILL.md avant de l’utiliser. Si le fichier cite des scripts ou services externes, examinez-les et préparez les accès nécessaires dans votre environnement de test.
Aucune section de prérequis reconnue dans ce fichier. Cela ne signifie pas qu’il est autonome : les bibliothèques, outils et accès peuvent être cités ailleurs dans le contenu ou dans le dépôt source.
Les plateformes de la fiche sont des indications du catalogue. Les chemins ci-dessous suivent la documentation des outils ; ils ne prouvent pas que cette skill y a été exécutée. Aucune version minimale de ces outils n’est attestée pour cette fiche.
3. Charger la skill
Après vérification, copiez le dossier complet dans le projet avec l’une des commandes ci-dessous, puis ouvrez une nouvelle session de l’outil. La commande s’arrête si un dossier du même nom existe déjà : comparez les fichiers avant de le remplacer.
Claude Code
test -f '.skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu/SKILL.md' && test -s '.skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu/SKILL.md' && mkdir -p '.claude/skills' && test ! -e '.claude/skills/data-quality-monitor-designer' && cp -R '.skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu' '.claude/skills/data-quality-monitor-designer'Cursor
test -f '.skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu/SKILL.md' && test -s '.skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu/SKILL.md' && mkdir -p '.cursor/skills' && test ! -e '.cursor/skills/data-quality-monitor-designer' && cp -R '.skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu' '.cursor/skills/data-quality-monitor-designer'Codex
test -f '.skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu/SKILL.md' && test -s '.skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu/SKILL.md' && mkdir -p '.agents/skills' && test ! -e '.agents/skills/data-quality-monitor-designer' && cp -R '.skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu' '.agents/skills/data-quality-monitor-designer'OpenSkills
OpenSkills doit déjà être installé. La procédure locale install/read est contrôlée avec OpenSkills 1.5.0, qui exige Node.js ≥ 20.6.0. Aucun slug du catalogue n’est résolu automatiquement.
Installation officielle d’OpenSkillsopenskills install './.skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu'openskills read 'data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu'La lecture doit afficher le contenu du fichier installé et son dossier de base. Elle ne lance ni la skill ni ses dépendances.
Pour un agent qui lit AGENTS.md, synchronisez ensuite l’index. Cette commande modifie AGENTS.md : relisez le diff avant de l’utiliser.
openskills syncMode manuel ou autre outil : joignez SKILL.md à une conversation, ou ouvrez-le dans un agent capable de lire les fichiers. Ajoutez les ressources annexes nécessaires. Il n’existe pas de dossier universel reconnu par tous les outils.
4. Faire un premier essai
Utilisez une entrée courte et fictive : un endpoint d’API, un petit document ou un brief d’interface. Dans une nouvelle conversation, joignez le fichier ou donnez son chemin à l’agent, puis adaptez cette demande :
Lis .skill-downloads/data-quality-monitor-designer-msjwk4nu/SKILL.md et applique ses instructions à cet exemple : [décrire une entrée de test]. Indique les fichiers, dépendances ou accès qui manquent. Produis le résultat demandé par la skill sans inventer de données ni exécuter de script non examiné.Résultat attendu : une sortie correspondant aux instructions de la skill, ou une liste précise des prérequis manquants. Une simple confirmation de lecture ne valide pas le premier usage. Si une ressource externe est indisponible, ce parcours reste à tester.
Créer des cartes interactives avec kepler.gl
Data & IA
Création de cartes interactives et export HTML autonome avec le package Python keplergl, à partir de données géospatiales (DataFrame, GeoJSON, CSV).
Optimisation de paramètres par agent
Data & IA
Guide d'optimisation de systèmes configurables avec objectif mesurable, via des essais bornés et une recommandation fondée sur des preuves.
Relance des visiteurs ICP
Data & IA
Identifiez les utilisateurs inscrits correspondant au profil client idéal mais qui n'ont pas activé, et rédigez des messages de relance personnalisés pour les réengager.