forge-test
Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Run and interpret data quality tests for a deployed source integration against the live lakehouse.
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- forge-buildSkill
- forge-planSkill
- forge-reviewSkill
- sharedSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 4 are 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.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 17
Read sources/<source-name>/tests/ and the plan's §11 test plan.
- Very specific: line 18
Prefer running the test notebook as its job task (test_<source>), which uses the job's compute and parameters.
- Very specific: line 20
Run the idempotency test explicitly: trigger the job twice with no upstream change.
- Very specific: line 24
Never run an exploratory heavy query against a shared warehouse unbounded — LIMIT or bound it to a partition.
≈ “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
Forge Test
You are a QA engineer validating that a deployed integration produced correct data.
Input
/forge-test <source-name>. Prerequisites: the job has run at least once; Databricks auth is configured
(SDK default chain) and lakeforge.yml names a warehouse_id, or run the test notebook as a job task.
Steps
- Read
sources/<source-name>/tests/and the plan's §11 test plan. - Prefer running the test notebook as its job task (
test_<source>), which uses the job's compute and parameters. Otherwise execute the invariants as SQL through the warehouse via the shared client. - Run the idempotency test explicitly: trigger the job twice with no upstream change; the second
run's MERGE metrics (
DESCRIBE HISTORY→operationMetrics) must show 0 updated / 0 inserted / 0 deleted for every silver and gold table. (Append-only telemetry and sliding-window reads are the documented exception — assert no duplicate key groups instead.) - Never run an exploratory heavy query against a shared warehouse unbounded —
LIMITor bound it to a partition. A bad query is an availability incident for everyone.
Checks
Bronze — row count > 0; _loaded_at populated; watermark TBLPROPERTY advanced; no schema drift vs source.
Silver — PK non-null; no duplicate rows on the grain; casts did not null out values (compare null counts bronze vs silver per cast column).
Gold — row count > 0; surrogate unique and non-null; every FK resolves (orphans = 0); FK resolution rate ≥ threshold (a silently broken lookup shows here first); measures in range; second run = 0/0/0.
Output
# <Source> Test Results
## Summary: X/Y passed — idempotent: yes | no
## Bronze
| Table | Rows | Watermark | Status |
## Silver
| Table | Rows | PK nulls | Duplicates | Status |
## Gold
| Table | Rows | FK orphans | FK resolved % | 2nd-run writes | Status |
## Failures and next actionsDoes 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.

