db-constraints
Skill22 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Audit data-integrity constraints — missing NOT NULL on required columns, absent CHECK constraints for domain rules, missing UNIQUE on natural keys, and the over-nullable UNIQUE trap where NULLs silently permit duplicates. Module M5. Feeds the Design & Integrity score (Constraints category).
In this repository36 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- auditSkill
- checklistSkill
- db-antipatternsSkill
- db-concurrencySkill
- db-connection-poolingSkill
- db-defaults-generatedSkill
- db-engine-selectionSkill
- db-index-hygieneSkill
- db-indexingSkill
- db-keysSkill
- db-migration-safetySkill
- db-multitenancySkill
- db-namingSkill
- db-normalizationSkill
- db-orchestratorSkill
- db-partitioning-shardingSkill
- db-platform-fitSkill
- db-query-patternsSkill
- db-referential-integritySkill
- db-replicas-viewsSkill
- db-security-accessSkill
- db-specialized-fitSkill
- db-storage-bloatSkill
- db-temporal-historySkill
- db-types-precisionSkill
- designSkill
- explainSkill
- fixSkill
- introspectSkill
- migrateSkill
- nextSkill
- scoreSkill
- seedSkill
- stack-detectSkill
- startSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 61
Never claim duplicates/violations exist without a Tier-1 count.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
<!-- Copyright (c) 2026 Enrique Rocha (@soyenriquerocha) · tododeia.com · id er-f37b7121 -->db-constraints (M5)
Constraints are invariants the database guarantees no matter which app, script, or migration writes the row. Without them, "this is always true" is a hope, not a fact. This module is design-axis (Constraints category). It applies to engines that enforce declarative constraints; document stores route to the Validación-schema category instead.
What it checks
- Missing NOT NULL: columns that are semantically required (FKs to mandatory parents,
email,status, timestamps) left nullable, allowing partial/garbage rows. - Missing CHECK: domain rules not enforced —
quantity >= 0,price >= 0,status IN (...),start_date <= end_date,email ~ '@'. The app "validates" it; the DB does not. - Missing UNIQUE: natural keys (email, username, slug, external_id) with no UNIQUE constraint, permitting duplicates that corrupt joins and auth.
- Case-insensitive uniqueness (emails): a plain
UNIQUEon a case-varying column (e.g.email) still admitsFoo@x.comandfoo@x.comas distinct rows — duplicate identities. Name the remedy: acitextcolumn type, or aUNIQUEexpression index onlower(col)(e.g.CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ON users (lower(email))), so case-folded values collide. - Over-nullable UNIQUE trap: a UNIQUE constraint over nullable columns where the engine treats each NULL as distinct, so duplicates slip through (e.g.
UNIQUE(user_id, deleted_at)for soft-delete uniqueness fails whendeleted_atis NULL). Recommend a partial/filtered unique index orNULLS NOT DISTINCT. - Constraint declared NOT VALID / NOCHECK and never validated.
Axis & severity
- Axis: design; magnitude banded, never a fabricated violation count.
- Missing UNIQUE on an auth/natural key allowing duplicate identities: severity 4,
fail/warn, confidencedirectional. - Over-nullable UNIQUE that silently permits dupes: severity 4,
warn(subtle, high-impact). - Missing NOT NULL on a required FK/column: severity 3,
warn. - Missing CHECK for a stated domain rule: severity 2–3,
warn,fixable: proposed. - M5 does not hold a sev-5 cap; it shapes the Constraints category value.
Tier-0 static check
Parse DDL/snapshot via scripts/parse-schema.mjs: list columns lacking NOT NULL; detect natural-key column names without a UNIQUE/unique index; find UNIQUE constraints whose member columns are nullable (the over-nullable trap); scan for absent CHECK on quantity/price/date-range columns. Program-source parses stay directional.
Tier-1 verification query
Inventory constraints and nullability:
-- $DATABASE_URL, read-only
SELECT c.table_name, c.column_name, c.is_nullable,
tc.constraint_type
FROM information_schema.columns c
LEFT JOIN information_schema.constraint_column_usage ccu
ON ccu.table_name = c.table_name AND ccu.column_name = c.column_name
LEFT JOIN information_schema.table_constraints tc
ON tc.constraint_name = ccu.constraint_name AND tc.constraint_type IN ('UNIQUE','CHECK')
WHERE c.table_schema NOT IN ('pg_catalog','information_schema');Confirm the over-nullable UNIQUE actually has duplicates:
SELECT user_id, count(*) FROM memberships WHERE deleted_at IS NULL
GROUP BY user_id HAVING count(*) > 1;Findings
Emit per schema/finding.schema.json. Examples:
M5.users.email_no_unique—emailhas no UNIQUE constraint; duplicate identities possible (severity 4,warn, axisdesign,fixable: proposed).M5.memberships.over_nullable_unique—UNIQUE(user_id, deleted_at)lets NULLdeleted_atduplicate (severity 4,warn, axisdesign).M5.order_items.quantity_no_check— noCHECK (quantity >= 0)(severity 3,warn).M5.events.user_id_nullable— required FK column is nullable (severity 3,warn). Each finding:evidence.observedquotes the column/constraint DDL verbatim;verification.reproduceis a runnable query above (method: ddl_parse/constraint_check/query_stat);expected_impactbanded + confidence-tagged.
Honesty
- App-layer validation reduces but does not replace a DB constraint — multiple writers (jobs, admin scripts, replicas) bypass the app. State this plainly; do not call app validation equivalent.
- The over-nullable UNIQUE trap is engine-specific (Postgres pre-15 treats NULLs distinct;
NULLS NOT DISTINCTsince 15). Scope advice to the detected engine/version, do not generalise. - Never claim duplicates/violations exist without a Tier-1 count; static, it is
directional.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

