airflow-aware

name	airflow-aware
description	This skill should be used when working in the apache/airflow repository as a contributor (not as a Dag author). It surfaces the conventions Airflow's own AGENTS.md enforces — naming, Breeze/uv environment, Ruff/Mypy style, coding rules, pytest patterns, PR hygiene — so any task (review, quick-fix, refactor) in airflow follows them.

Airflow-Aware

Loaded by: repo-detect hook (SessionStart) when apache/airflow is detected in git remote or file structure. Applies to: Any skill execution within an Apache Airflow contributor checkout — review, quick-fix, refactoring, or otherwise.

When to apply

This is a knowledge layer, not a review checklist. It is loaded automatically by the repo_detect hook at session start when an Apache Airflow repo is detected. It mirrors and supplements the repo's own AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md, condensed for agent context.

It can also be triggered manually via a memory entry with triggers: [airflow-aware] (see Memory-triggered skill loading).

Once loaded, treat every convention as background — do not re-read each task.

Contributor conventions

1. Read AGENTS.md first — it wins

The single source of truth for contributor conventions lives in the repo itself. This skill is a condensed onramp formatted for agent startup context, not a competing authority.

1. First action: read AGENTS.md (or CLAUDE.md — both are identical, 455 lines).
2. Conflict resolution: if anything in this skill contradicts AGENTS.md, the repo file wins.
3. Review tasks: also read .github/instructions/code-review.instructions.md for review-specific guidance.

2. Naming — Dag (prose) vs DAG (code)

In prose, write Dag (title case) — never all-caps DAG unless referring to the Python class, and never expand "Directed Acyclic Graph". Code tokens stay as-is: class DAG, dag_id, airflow dags list, dag_processing/, DAG_FOLDER. See the "Naming" section of AGENTS.md when in doubt.

Naming hook false positives

The airflow-workspace naming hook (fires on Edit/Write, reports "RULE VIOLATION", commands "Fix all occurrences now") is a pure string match — it fires on any all-caps DAG spelling anywhere in the file, with no awareness of the naming rule's own exceptions (Python code tokens, CLI commands, paths/config keys, URLs, anti-pattern quotes that intentionally show the wrong form — all of these must stay literal).

When it fires:

1. grep -n list every hit in the file.
2. Classify each hit as prose-violation vs literal-exception against the exception list above.
3. Only fix the prose violations. If every hit is a literal exception, say so explicitly in the reply (with the classification) and don't touch the file.

Note: a file that discusses this naming rule itself (like this skill file) will always trip the hook — that's expected, not a bug to fix.

Historical archival files are exempt — never rewrite past entries

airflow-core/docs/migrations-ref.rst and RELEASE_NOTES.rst / CHANGELOG.rst (including provider changelog.rst files) reproduce historical record verbatim — a migration revision's original message, or a past PR's shipped title. Existing all-caps/lowercase spellings in those past entries are not to be rewritten to Dag, even when a naming-rule hook fires on them. Rewriting them silently changes the historical record and breaks the git log ↔ release-note correspondence for past PRs. When scoped to fixing something else in one of these files (e.g. a spell-check nit), touch only the offending line; ignore the naming hook for pre-existing all-caps occurrences elsewhere in the same file — don't pre-emptively "fix" them. New entries appended to these files still follow the normal Dag naming rule; only existing historical rows are exempt.

3. Environment — Breeze + uv + prek

Do not run pytest, mypy, or pre-commit directly on the host. Use the Breeze container or uv run --project <PROJECT> for isolation. Airflow is a monorepo; dependency isolation relies on --project.

# run tests for a specific project
uv run --project airflow-core pytest tests/unit/foo/test_bar.py

# format and lint
uv run --project airflow-core ruff format src/
uv run --project airflow-core ruff check --fix src/

# pre-commit equivalent (use prek, not pre-commit)
prek run --all-files

Scratch scripts go in dev/ — not in repo root or scripts/.

Note: prek is the runner currently specified by upstream. It is compatible with the same hooks as pre-commit.

Before building a new prek hook: surface the genericity/fragility trade-off first

Before adding a new prek hook, answer two questions up front and surface them to the user for sign-off — don't wait until the hook is fully implemented (with tests, registered in .pre-commit-config.yaml) before the user gets a chance to reconsider:

1. Do sibling checks already exist for a similar concern? A CI gate scoped to only one provider/module when siblings have no equivalent check is an inconsistent precedent worth calling out.
2. Will the check false-positive on a small, unrelated change (a doc reformat, a cross-reference restyling)? A brittle detection heuristic costs more in false-positive triage than it saves.

Beyond that up-front check, prefer dynamic discovery over hardcoded references — e.g. walk a migration chain via its own directory/API rather than hardcoding specific revision IDs, so a new entry added later is automatically in scope without a script edit. And stop to simplify when a hook's design starts accreting per-version matrices, baseline files, or regenerate-baseline flags — a design that doubles in complexity in one session usually has a simpler alternative (e.g. collapsing to a single linear walk with no baseline) that gives the same coverage.

uv run --project vs --directory danger zone

In an Airflow worktree, uv run --directory "$WT" <cmd> is safe — it uses the existing venv for that directory and does not trigger a re-resolve.

uv run --project "$WT" <cmd> only becomes dangerous when $WT is the whole worktree root: that triggers a full workspace-level dependency resolve, which pulls in apache-airflow[all] → apache-airflow-providers-jdbc → jpype1. Building jpype1 needs Java, and macOS's default /usr/bin/java is an empty stub, so the build fails at CMake's find_package(Java) step.

uv run --project airflow-core <cmd> (pointing at a monorepo sub-project name, not a worktree path — as in the example above) is a different, safe usage: it resolves only that sub-project's dependency set, not the whole workspace. Don't conflate the two — the danger is specific to --project at a worktree root, not to --project itself.

verify_completion in this repo

repo_detect writes .claude/skip-test-verification on first detection so the Stop-hook does not try to run a host-side uv run pytest (which pulls jpype1 → cmake FindJava and fails on machines without a JDK; the 90s timeout also cannot cover any Airflow subproject's suite). To re-enable verification for a focused area, delete that file or replace it with a targeted .claude/test-command such as uv run --project airflow-core pytest tests/unit/<path>/test_<file>.py.

jpype1 fallback: if the Stop-hook still encounters a jpype1 / cmake / FindJava error (because .claude/skip-test-verification was missing or the hook executed before repo_detect had a chance to write it), treat it as a known upstream constraint and move on. Do not try to install a JDK, patch jpype1 import paths, or rewire the lock file — those are upstream issues, not part of any maigo task scope. If verification was genuinely needed, run a targeted single-file pytest manually instead.

uv.lock phantom diff diagnostic

A persistent uv.lock diff you did not introduce — and that returns after git checkout HEAD -- uv.lock + the next uv sync — is almost always lockfile drift on main (a contributor edited a pyproject.toml without re-running uv lock), not a local environment problem. Don't fold the re-lock into your feature PR; git checkout HEAD -- uv.lock keeps the noise out, and the diff re-appearing on the next uv sync is expected.

Full diagnostic — confirm the drift, find when it was introduced, worked case study, and how to handle in a feature PR — is in the "uv.lock drift diagnostic" section of references/review-checks.md.

4. Code style — Ruff + Mypy

• Formatter: uv run ruff format
• Linter: uv run ruff check --fix
• Line length: 110 (not the Ruff default of 88 — agents most often miss this)
• New files require the Apache License header — copy it verbatim from any existing .py file in the repo (do not hand-retype it).
• Mypy is run via prek — do not invoke it directly on the host.

5. Coding rules agents most often miss

These are extracted from the "Coding rules" section of AGENTS.md. They are listed here because they are the conventions agents most frequently overlook.

For the extended recipes on import placement (top-level vs TYPE_CHECKING vs lazy, plain name over alias, shadowing-parameter rename), class-docstring :param conventions (including dropping boilerplate __init__ lead-ins), user-facing docstring wording, naming/constant conventions, raise-vs-document validation posture, dropping manually-enumerated invariants once a check enforces them, mypy Optional narrowing via branch restructure, new prek hook script conventions, and the "no logical_date in Airflow 3 examples" authoring rule, read references/code-style.md.

• No assert in production code — use a real exception (e.g., ValueError, RuntimeError).
• Do not add new raise AirflowException — use a more specific exception class instead.
• session parameter must be keyword-only and the callee must not call session.commit(); transaction management is the caller's responsibility.
• Use time.monotonic() for elapsed-time measurement — not time.time().
• Imports go at the top of the file — no function-local imports unless the comment explicitly notes a circular dependency, lazy load, or TYPE_CHECKING guard.
• __init__ and always-called functions: default to top-level imports. Reserve the lazy / function-body form for exactly four cases: (1) TYPE_CHECKING block, (2) breaking a known circular-import cycle, (3) multi-process worker-isolation path, (4) deferred-execution callback (e.g., a deserialize() body that is not called at module import time). Self-check: "does this function run on every public touch of the class?" If yes → top-level. Note: §10.3 and §10.4 address distinct but adjacent rules — Unix-only module gates and heavy type-only imports in multi-process paths; this rule is about the default for eager call sites.

6. Delivery completeness

User-facing features (new public class / SDK symbol / scheduling behaviour) must ship all three deliverables in the same PR:

1. Implementation + tests — the obvious part.
2. Example Dag — fold into an existing example file (e.g., example_asset_partition.py); reuse the existing block style and existing asset/producer objects. Do not open a new example file or add a bare new with DAG(...) block — consistent with the "don't proliferate example Dags" convention.
3. Docs update — update the relevant .rst (e.g., airflow-core/docs/authoring-and-scheduling/assets.rst). Prose uses "Dag"; known limitations are written as constraints, not # TODO placeholders.

Public-symbol sync (docs side): whenever a public symbol is added or removed, task-sdk/docs/api.rst and the corresponding airflow-core/docs/ .. autoapiclass:: entries must be updated together with __init__.py / __all__ / lazy-import table. Dropping a removed symbol and adding a new one are both required — a missing deletion causes breeze build-docs to crash at Sphinx import time; a missing addition causes a silent gap in the API reference. After editing, grep the old symbol name across docs/ to confirm no stale references remain.

Why: apache/airflow PR #64571 (Window / RollupMapper) and the partition-mapper refactor both shipped with example + docs in the same PR; missing either was flagged in round-1 review.

QA / status-doc conventions

When drafting or reviewing a manual QA plan, feature-coverage matrix, or status doc for a feature that ships:

• Don't add a "serialization round-trip" manual QA item. The scheduler only ever reads serialized Dags, so every functional test in the plan already exercises the deserialized form implicitly — a broken round-trip would make those functional checks fail first. Field-level lossless round-trip belongs in a pytest unit test, not a manual QA row. The one legitimate manual touch is a first-time smoke glance at the serialized_dag JSON when a brand-new param ships — that's dev smoke, not a recurring QA item.
• Don't leave "not done yet" signals in a status/QA doc meant to record completed work — drop header decorations like ✅ merged / 🚧 / ❌ not native, and avoid absence-wording for deliberately-scoped behavior (not implemented, scoped out, ad-hoc/throwaway for a fixture). Describe an intentionally-scoped feature positively as the current design, not as a gap measured against something that was never built. An empty results column (template waiting to be filled) is fine — that's not a not-done signal. Once a results column is actually filled, a per-row ✅ Pass (...) marking the verification method is good practice — the no-decoration rule governs headers/progress marks and "not done" phrasing, not a factual pass/fail record.
• A defect found in the example Dag / test fixture while QA-ing a feature is in scope to fix, not just to log. If the bug is in the shipped example producer/consumer rather than the feature under test, fix it and fold the fix into the same PR (ask before editing the shared artifact) — a broken example is a broken user-facing artifact, and fixing it is part of finishing the QA.

7. Testing

• pytest only — do not subclass unittest.TestCase.
• All mocks must have spec= or autospec=True — bare MagicMock() without a spec is not acceptable.
• Use assert_* methods for mock assertions (assert_called_once_with, assert_called_with, assert_not_called, etc.) — do not compare .mock_calls lists directly. The assert_* methods verify calling signature and raise a clear failure message; raw list comparison is fragile and obscures intent.
• Time-dependent tests use time_machine — do not monkey-patch datetime.now manually.
• DB-touching tests must be marked @pytest.mark.db_test.
• Do not use caplog — Airflow has a different approach to log assertion; see the "Testing" section of AGENTS.md for the prescribed pattern. The typical alternative is to attach a mock log handler and use its assert_called_once_with or other assert_* methods to verify the calling signature rather than inspecting caplog output.
• Test paths mirror source paths: airflow-core/src/airflow/foo/bar.py ↔ airflow-core/tests/unit/foo/test_bar.py

8. PR / commit / newsfragment

• Write commit messages and PR titles from the user-impact perspective — describe what changes for users, not which files were touched.
• Agent-opened PRs must include a Generated-by: footer in the PR body (see the "Pull requests" section of AGENTS.md for the exact format).
• Newsfragments are only required for changes to airflow-core/, chart/, or dev/mypy/. Changes in other subdirectories do not need one.
• Imminent fixes (obvious bugs, small refactors with no design question) can go straight to a PR — no need to open an issue first.

9. Architecture boundaries (optional, for architectural review)

Airflow's subsystems have strict ownership boundaries that must not be crossed:

• Scheduler does not execute user code.
• Worker does not write to the metadata DB directly.
• Providers do not import from airflow core internals.
• Task SDK is isolated from scheduler/worker internals.

Cross-boundary changes require extra scrutiny. Before proposing or reviewing such a change, read .github/instructions/code-review.instructions.md.

Core ↔ SDK paired-class symmetry

Several public APIs exist as paired classes — one in airflow-core/ and one in task-sdk/ with the same conceptual role and the same name (e.g., the temporal partition mappers _BaseTemporalMapper in airflow.partition_mappers.temporal vs airflow.sdk.definitions.partition_mappers.temporal). When the two implementations drift on a same-named attribute, the divergence is a bug, not a nit — even if both sides happen to work in practice because downstream code (encoders, serializers, consumers) tolerates both shapes.

Things to compare side-by-side when reviewing or self-reviewing such a class:

• Constructor signature (kwargs, positional-vs-keyword, defaults).
• Attribute type after __init__ (e.g., is _timezone always Timezone | FixedTimezone on both sides, or is one side keeping a raw str?).
• Validation / normalization step in __init__ (e.g., one side runs parse_timezone(), the other stores verbatim).
• Eager-raise behaviour for invalid input.

Do not accept "this can be a separate PR" framing just because the gap is "merely" a type or validation asymmetry. Fix it in the current PR. The related question — whether the overall patch is a bugfix or feature completion, which determines newsfragment + backport label — is a separate axis covered by the SDK/Core release-state framing memory (check release tags via git tag --contains <sha> and git show <tag>:<file> to confirm).

Design-integrity checks (references)

Four more framework/base-API design patterns — declarative type-pairing guards over override proxies, symmetric paired-parameter naming, the two independent cost axes of a new hot-loop extension surface, and closing a framework-internal sum-type structurally rather than visibly — are in references/design-integrity.md. Read it when designing or reviewing a new base/framework API, a type-pairing guard, or an extension point on the scheduler/triggerer/API hot loop.

10. Review-time-only checks (loaded as strict-review item 10+)

When airflow-aware is loaded during a review task (🟡 Soyo running strict-review on an Airflow diff), read references/review-checks.md in this skill's directory and append its sub-checks as items 10+, with the severity each sub-check states. The file covers:

• 10.1 Execution API wire-format gate (Block)
• 10.2 Multi-PR split: wire-format symbol cross-check (Block)
• 10.3 Top-level imports of Unix-only modules (Block)
• 10.4 TYPE_CHECKING guards for heavy type-only imports (Request changes)
• 10.5 Security finding classification (3-way triage before reporting)
• 10.6 Newsfragment file presence (Request changes)
• 10.7 Revert of a recent fix: check for a tracking issue first (judgment gate, scope-gated to revert PRs)
• 10.8 Self-discovered bugfix: verify upstream doesn't already have it (Request changes, scope-gated)
• 10.9 Forward-looking code comments need a tracking-issue URL or neutral rewrite (Request changes, scope-gated)

plus the Airflow case studies backing strict-review's recurring must-fix patterns. Outside of a review context (quick-fix / refactor), skip the file — these checks are review-only and do not gate other tasks.

11. CLI / REST / docs / backport conventions

CLI and REST design consistency

Before designing a new CLI command's semantic, filter, or default, grep sibling commands first — cross-command consistency outranks a per-command UX win. If a proposed behavior diverges from how sibling commands treat the same semantic field (e.g. a date-range filter, an end-date clamp), be able to explain why this command deviates; if you can't, align with the siblings instead. Do this before implementation, not after review blocks it.

When adding a REST endpoint that parallels an existing CLI command, name it after the CLI's verb and the existing REST verb vocabulary, not a more literally-accurate coined word — e.g. clearPartitions (mirroring CLI airflow partitions clear and REST clearDagRuns) beats a technically-more- precise resetPartitionFields. Consistency across the user-facing surface beats per-endpoint pedantic accuracy.

Docs authoring

• "When to use X vs Y" comparison docs need why (X's core value proposition), when (bullets mapped to concrete operator/API names with doc links), a mirrored "use Y instead when…" list, and a one-line rule of thumb at the end. Find the real axis of difference before writing the difference section — a surface feature comparison that both sides share equally hasn't found the axis yet (e.g. two "agent" operators don't differ by whether they have tools/MCP if both do; they differ by where the loop executes and who controls the tools).
• User-facing doc snippets teach the canonical import — e.g. from airflow.sdk import dag, task — not a provider-internal compatibility shim path, which is only for in-package shipped code.
• Section headers/labels name the specific things being compared, not a generic count or umbrella ("Two styles of X" teaches nothing — name the styles). Keep internal-component words (e.g. "scheduler") out of user-facing prose; phrase from the Dag author's observable perspective.
• providers/<x>/docs/index.rst has a hand-written prologue followed by an auto-generated block (marked by an "AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED" comment) that gets overwritten at release time. Reordering/placement feedback on this file is answered by editing above the marker (usually a short lead-in sentence), never by moving content at or after it.
• When a new parameter/flag changes user-visible API semantics (e.g. how a special character is interpreted in a query param), the public description / OpenAPI spec must be updated in the same change as the code — not left describing the old semantics. Regenerate the spec + client after editing.
• zh-TW locale content: call it "Taiwanese Mandarin", never "Traditional Chinese" — this applies to commit messages, PR text, docs, and comments produced for this repo. When translating a UI string, check the repo's existing zh-TW translations for established terminology before coining a new term.

Partitioned / scheduling-range API granularity

Don't type a partitioned/scheduling-range API parameter at date granularity (datetime.date) — take datetime bounds and walk the timetable's own cadence instead. A date-typed parameter makes a sub-day window structurally inexpressible, and day-bound expansion logic then silently widens any window to the whole local day even for an hourly-cadence timetable. When adding or reviewing timetable/backfill range behavior: pass datetimes and honor bounds as both-ends-inclusive instants; always add a sub-day cron case ("0 * * * *") to the tests — day-grained tests alone give a false green on day-bound bugs.

Backport judgment

When a backport branch's drift-check fails because it references something (a file, a test site) that doesn't exist on that branch, check whether the underlying capability is already present on the branch before deciding the check should just be narrowed in scope. If the capability shipped but the newer test coverage for it didn't get backported, the right move is usually to backport the source PR that added the missing coverage — not to shrink the check to stop noticing the gap.

Composing with other skills

This skill pairs with strict-review.

Review scenario — run strict-review's 9-item base checklist as usual, then apply airflow-aware conventions as Airflow-specific supplements:

• Convention 2 (naming) reinforces the naming check (base item 4).
• Conventions 4 and 5 reinforce the style and correctness checks (base items 5–6).
• Convention 6 (delivery completeness) reinforces the acceptance-match check (base item 1).
• Convention 7 (testing) reinforces the evidence and edge-case checks (base items 2–3).
• §10 sub-checks (10.1–10.9, in references/review-checks.md) become items 10+ in the checklist output, with Block / Request-changes severity inherited from each sub-section.

Quick-fix / refactor scenario — use conventions 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 as background knowledge. Flag violations you notice, but do not run the full strict-review checklist unless the task calls for it. §10 sub-checks are review-only — do not gate non-review tasks on them.