port-context-lake

name	port-context-lake
description	Design and build a Port context lake: a connected, semantically-rich data model of blueprints, relations, and mirror/aggregation properties that AI agents, scorecards, and workflows can query and act on, not just a plain software catalog. Use when asked to 'build a context lake', 'design a Port data model for AI agents', 'set up the engineering intelligence data model', 'connect services to teams and orgs in Port', 'model our org hierarchy in Port', or 'why can't Port AI answer questions about our org structure'.
license	MIT
compatibility	Claude Code, Cursor, Codex CLI, GitHub Copilot
metadata	{"version":"1.0.0","author":"port-labs","repository":"https://github.com/port-labs/port-skills","tags":"port,context-lake,data-model,ontology,reference","summary":"Design a Port context lake with connected blueprints and semantic relations"}

Build a context lake

A context lake is Port's data model once it stops being a flat catalog and becomes a connected graph: blueprints related to each other, with mirror and aggregation properties, descriptions, and relation titles precise enough that an AI agent can traverse it and act, not just browse it. This skill designs that model. For the JSON mechanics of any single blueprint, property, or relation, use port-blueprints; this skill is the layer above that: what to build, in what order, and why.

Prerequisites

• Go over the port-getting-started skill first if this is your first time working with Port, it covers signing up and connecting Port's MCP server.
• If Port's MCP server is connected, this skill can use it to check what already exists (list_blueprints) and apply the resulting blueprint, relation, and property changes directly (upsert_blueprint), rather than just handing you JSON to apply yourself. Search search_port_knowledge_sources for anything this skill doesn't cover.

How to build it

1. Start from what Port already gives you. Every account ships built-in blueprints (_user, _team, _scorecard, and others) that you extend, not replace. See references/default-blueprints.md.
2. Design the core layer before the provider layer. Model your organization's own shape first (organization, team, service), then relate it to provider-specific blueprints your integrations create (GitHub, GitLab, Jira, ...), rather than duplicating provider data into your core blueprints. See references/reference-architecture.md for a full worked example.
3. Model hierarchy with a self-relation, not one blueprint per tier. A parent_team relation on _team handles arbitrary org depth. See references/relations-and-hierarchy.md.
4. Use ownership instead of a custom team relation. Port's built-in $team field already rolls up into _team aggregations for free. See references/ownership.md.
5. Add mirror and aggregation properties, not duplicated data. Mirror a single related value onto its source; aggregate across many related entities on the blueprint that sits above them. For the JSON shape, see port-blueprints' references/calculation-properties.md; for which one to use and where to put it, see references/mirror-vs-aggregation.md.
6. Write it as an ontology, not a schema. Descriptions, relation titles, and typed properties are what let an agent understand the graph instead of just enumerating it. See references/ontology.md.
7. Decide integration vs. MCP connector per data source. Only data that needs relations, ownership, or scorecards belongs in the lake as ingested entities; everything else can stay a live MCP fetch. See references/ingestion-strategy.md.

Examples

• assets/team-hierarchy-patch.json: adds a parent_team self-relation and mirror property to _team.
• assets/service-github-mirrors-patch.json: relates service to githubRepository and mirrors its key fields.
• assets/team-aggregation-patch.json: adds an aggregation property rolling up owned services onto _team.

Common pitfalls

Symptom	Cause	Fix
Tried to delete or fully redefine _user/_team	System blueprints can't be deleted, only extended	PATCH in new relations only; leave the protected schema alone
service has no team relation and it seems wrong	Port uses built-in ownership ($team), not a custom relation, for this	Set ownership on service, don't add a redundant relation
One blueprint per org-hierarchy tier (team, group, division, org)	Hierarchy modeled as a chain of distinct blueprints instead of a self-relation	Use a single parent_team self-relation on _team, extensible to any depth
Same repo/PR data duplicated on two different blueprints	Two integrations model the same real-world thing separately	Map by property into the existing blueprint instead of creating a second one
Agent can't tell which of several relations to a blueprint is which	Relations exist but have generic titles like team or service	Give each relation a semantic title (Owned by, Runs in, Depends on)

Quick reference

• Core layer first (organization, team, service), provider layer relates to it, never duplicates it.
• Hierarchy: one self-relation (parent_team), not one blueprint per tier.
• Ownership over relations: use $team, don't hand-roll a team relation.
• Mirror = one related value, surfaced as-is. Aggregation = computed across many, placed on the higher-abstraction blueprint.
• An ontology has descriptions, semantic relation titles, and typed properties; a schema is just field names.
• Integration = persistent, related, governed data. MCP connector = live, on-demand, unmodeled data. Use both, for different data.