tracing-downstream-lineage

Trace downstream data lineage and impact analysis. Use when the user asks what depends on this data, what breaks if something changes, downstream dependencies, or needs to assess change risk before modifying a table or DAG.

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/tracing-downstream-lineage/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

62%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill provides a solid workflow for downstream impact analysis with a clear 5-step process and useful output templates. Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity (some sections explain concepts Claude would already understand, like criticality levels) and mixed actionability — some steps have concrete commands while others are vague descriptions. The content would benefit from trimming obvious categorizations and making discovery steps more concrete.

Suggestions

Make Step 3 (Categorize by Criticality) more concise — Claude understands criticality levels; a brief note or single example suffices instead of 16 bullet points across 4 categories.

Make Steps 3 and 5 more actionable with specific commands or queries rather than descriptive guidance (e.g., provide a concrete query or grep pattern to find DAG owners instead of 'Check owners field in DAG definitions').

Consider splitting the detailed output templates (Impact Report section) into a separate reference file to keep the main skill focused on the workflow steps.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is reasonably well-structured but includes some unnecessary verbosity. The criticality categorization section (Critical/High/Medium/Low) is somewhat obvious to Claude, and the Astro UI paragraph adds context that could be trimmed. The output templates are useful but lengthy.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete SQL queries and CLI commands (af dags list, af dags source), but much of the guidance is descriptive rather than executable. Steps like 'Look for BI tool connections' and 'Find Stakeholders' are vague. The output templates are helpful but are formats rather than executable steps.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced and logically ordered: identify consumers → build dependency tree → categorize criticality → assess risk → find stakeholders. The checklist at the end serves as a validation checkpoint before proceeding with changes. The process naturally builds from discovery to action.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill references related skills at the bottom which is good navigation, but the content itself is monolithic — the detailed output templates, criticality categories, and risk assessment tables could be split into a separate reference file. No bundle files exist to offload this content to.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

89%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This is a well-crafted description with excellent trigger terms and completeness. The 'Use when' clause provides multiple natural phrasings that users would actually say. The main weakness is that the 'what' portion could be more specific about the concrete actions performed (e.g., listing affected tables, generating dependency trees, identifying breaking pipelines).

Suggestions

Expand the capability description with more concrete actions, e.g., 'Trace downstream data lineage, identify affected tables and pipelines, and perform impact analysis' to improve specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain (data lineage/impact analysis) and mentions some actions ('trace downstream data lineage', 'assess change risk'), but doesn't list multiple concrete specific actions like listing affected tables, generating dependency graphs, or identifying breaking queries.	2 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both 'what' (trace downstream data lineage and impact analysis) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause with multiple trigger scenarios including dependency questions, change risk assessment, and DAG modifications).	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes strong natural trigger terms users would actually say: 'what depends on this data', 'what breaks if something changes', 'downstream dependencies', 'change risk', 'table', 'DAG'. These cover common phrasings well.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The focus on downstream lineage, impact analysis, and DAG dependencies creates a clear niche that is unlikely to conflict with general data skills. Terms like 'downstream dependencies', 'change risk', and 'DAG' are highly specific to this domain.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: astronomer/agents
Commit: 789b454

Reviewed: 8 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.