create-static-viz

name	create-static-viz
description	Build or refresh an OWID static visualization end to end — resolve what data it needs from an old static viz image, an indicator, or a grapher chart; check both the ETL catalog and the producer's own site for a newer release and route to /create-dataset or /update-dataset when one exists; write the export://static_viz matplotlib step that emits Figma-ready SVG and PNG at the static-chart templates' proportions; then hand off to /create-figma-chart. Trigger when the user asks to "refresh this static viz", "remake this chart as a static image", "create a static viz", pastes an old static viz image or filename and asks for a better version, or picks up a viz from the static-viz refresh queue.
metadata	{"internal":true}

Create or refresh a static visualization

Joins the three halves of a static-viz refresh that are otherwise separate: getting the data into ETL at a current vintage, drawing it in an export://static_viz step whose SVG a designer can actually pick up, and getting that SVG into the Charts file.

Model check: the session context names the running model. On Fable, recommend re-running on Opus (or Sonnet for a mechanical re-render) before starting, and continue only on the user's say-so — same rule as /create-figma-chart.

Paired skill — an update here may oblige an update there, and the reverse. /create-figma-chart owns everything that happens inside Figma, and this skill hands off to it at Step 7. The two share a contract that lives half in each file, so when you change something on this list, check the other skill in the same session and update it too — or state explicitly that you checked and no change was needed. Neither side may drift silently; a stale cross-skill fact is how a later run re-derives geometry by trial and error.

Shared fact	Owner	Consumed by
Template geometry — node ids, sizes, band top, footer starts	TEMPLATES.md	both
The content box and the band a chart is fitted into	TEMPLATES.md	both
Node naming (gids) this step emits, and frame proportions	this skill	that skill's Steps 1/3/7–8
Which text slots this step fills vs. leaves to the template	this skill	that skill's Step 6
Type and palette — this step sets neither	that skill	this skill defers to it
The design vocabulary (per chart type, labeling, colors)	that skill's GUIDELINES.md	both

The asymmetry worth remembering: this skill owns the data, the geometry and the proportions; that one owns the type and the palette. A change that crosses that line belongs in both files. In particular, if you change what the step emits — node naming, frame proportions, which text slots it fills — check whether that skill's Step 1/3/7 notes on local SVGs still hold.

Its GUIDELINES.md is where the visual vocabulary this skill defers to actually lives — the per-chart-type rules, direct labeling in place of legends, the OWID palette, the annotation and reference-line conventions. Read the section for your chart type before choosing a form or deciding what to label: the point is not to style anything here, it is to avoid emitting a structure the Figma pass then has to undo (a legend that should have been direct labels, a category count that cannot be labeled in place). That file also indexes the design team's DI Chart Library (pltrHXyVLg2XaNq4AvxPaK, read-only) — 272 finished charts filed by chart type, which is the closest thing to precedent for whatever you are about to draw.

Two companions in this directory:

• TEMPLATES.md — the static-chart template geometry, measured off the Charts file. Read it before laying anything out; don't re-derive it through MCP calls.
• scripts/verify_static_viz.py — mechanical check that the emitted files honor the Figma handoff contract. Run it before showing anyone the chart.

The step-by-step detail lives in reference/ and is read at that step:

Read	When	Covers
reference/WRITING-THE-STEP.md	Step 4	The handoff contract, grapher's axis and tick treatment, encoding diagrams, desktop/mobile pairing, text slots, labelling many categories, Figma-surviving anchors, the assertions to write.
reference/GOTCHAS.md	Its Data section at Step 1, before any column is used; the rest on an error, or grep by symptom	Data, layout and workflow pitfalls.

Size budget, enforced by --structure: this spine under 30 KB, TEMPLATES.md under 25 KB. Both are read on every run, so a paragraph added here costs every future viz — new detail belongs in the reference file for its step. After editing any doc in this skill:

.venv/bin/python .claude/skills/create-figma-chart/scripts/verify_docs.py --skill create-static-viz --structure
# and after moving text between files, prove nothing was dropped:
.venv/bin/python .claude/skills/create-figma-chart/scripts/verify_docs.py --skill create-static-viz --against <ref>

When you do make a Figma MCP call, batch it. A call costs twice — the network hop to the hosted connector and the model turn around it. The hop is environment-specific and the cloud is the faster side of it: get_screenshot 7.8–9.9 s from a sandbox against 12.5–20.5 s locally, use_figma 0.70 s against 3.5–5.8 s. The turn is not environmental — it tracks the work in it, and identical light probes measured 2.8 s in a sandbox against 3.7 s locally. (A ~12 s cloud turn was claimed here once; it came from turns doing real chart work, so it is the heavy-turn cost either side.) Either way, a handful issued one at a time is the difference between seconds and minutes. Batching pays about the same in both: the connector serves concurrent calls — eight screenshots in one message measured 4.1× faster than serially, and ten reps of a fixed six-call probe a side put it at ≈4.0× in both environments (4.00× cloud, 3.84× local, six in flight every time) — and admits about four or five at once, so put independent calls in one message, 4–6 at a time. A batch's wall is first call + rate × (n−1) — measured at 9.2 s + 0.75 s per extra screenshot in a cloud session and 11.7 s + 2.1 s locally — and that marginal cost is the stopping rule. Those are screenshots; batching use_figma never compresses its calls (one plugin context per file) and pays only by collecting turn gaps — still worth it, and worth more in the cloud, where the cheap call makes the turn 80% of the cost rather than 46%. Reads always; writes only when they target different pages. If the Figma tools arrive deferred — a harness setting, not an environment — load the ones you need in a single ToolSearch, taking the prefix from your own session's tool list rather than assuming one; skip that where they are already loaded. /create-figma-chart → Round-trip budget has the full rule and the list of what is genuinely serial.

What this skill does not decide: colors, fonts, background, the logo, and any visual treatment the template provides. Those are applied in Figma. The ETL step owns the data, the structure (which text slots exist, in what order), the proportions, and the axis conventions. Setting a cream background or a serif title in matplotlib is work that will be thrown away.

The project's rules

Policy, quoted from the parent issue (owid/owid-issues#2459, and identically in the earlier #2278). These are not this skill's inventions and are not negotiable here.

Scope. A refresh is either a data update plus light visual tweaks (the common case) or visual polish only (when the data is already current).

We should not do deep redesigns. Aim to reproduce the same visualization with the same broad design choices.

So the default is to rebuild the same chart, better — not to redesign it. When the existing design has a real defect — an encoding that misleads, overlapping translucent fills that produce a color meaning nothing, a caption that misstates what the data shows — a departure can be the right call. But it then stops being a refresh, and needs naming as such: say plainly that it exceeds the scope rule, say which defect justifies it, and get design sign-off on the departure rather than letting it pass as polish.

Quality bar.

• All numbers match the source.
• As much as possible, make visualizations reproducible so future updates are easier (and transparent).
• Design consistency: Marwa should sign off on every new static viz.
• Mobile: discuss with Marwa whether a mobile version is feasible; otherwise, make the desktop version as readable as possible on mobile.

The second line is why this skill exists: an export://static_viz step is the reproducibility requirement, met. The third is not optional — @mrwbkrm signs off on every one. The fourth means a mobile version is a question to ask, not a default to assume.

Pace. Work in progress stays at roughly one or two open child issues. Don't start a new refresh to avoid finishing one.

Author credit

The license line carries the credit, and who appears on it depends on how much changed:

What changed	Credit
Data updated, design broadly preserved	the original author, and whoever is doing the refresh
Design changed considerably	whoever is doing the refresh, alone

"Whoever is doing the refresh" is the person running this skill — not a fixed name. Resolve it from git config user.name and confirm it at the Step 3 checkpoint, following the repo convention of crediting the human directing the work and asking when it is ambiguous. Never carry a name over from a previous run of this skill, or from the AUTHOR constant of another step you copied from.

The original author is not always recorded anywhere obvious; static_viz_popular.csv carries viz_authors / viz_authors_source, and the old image's own footer usually states it. When the call between the two rows is genuinely close, ask — it is someone's credit.

This is also a useful test of whether the scope rule above has been crossed. If the honest credit drops the original author, the design changed considerably, and that is the case needing the sign-off conversation rather than a quiet ship.

Inputs

Any one of:

• An old static viz — the image, its filename, or the page it appears on.
• An indicator — a catalogPath, or a description of one.
• A grapher chart — live URL, staging URL, admin edit URL, bare slug, or chart id.
• Just a description of the chart wanted, plus a source.

Optionally: the article or topic page the viz belongs to, and a reference page in the Charts file to work like (/create-figma-chart has a whole mode for that).

Step 1 — Resolve the input to data

Reuse the existing resolver rather than writing another one:

.venv/bin/python .claude/skills/edit-faust-metadata/scripts/resolve_target.py <reference> [--json] [--no-db]

It takes a live/staging/admin URL, a bare slug, a chart id, or an indicator catalogPath, reports the chart's variables with their catalogPaths, and names the candidate ETL step files — including a warning when the grapher catalogPath's version differs from what is on disk.

In a cloud session, run it with --no-db first — only the DB half is unavailable. Parse-only mode never calls read_sql, so it works in a sandbox: it identifies what the reference is, preserves the dimension query params, and names the candidate ETL step files for an indicator or MDim catalogPath. Do that before reaching for anything else. What --no-db cannot give you is the DB half — a bare slug stays chart-or-mdim (needs DB), and the chart's variables and their catalogPaths need MySQL.

For that half, don't wait on staging. A cloud sandbox has no MySQL and staging is on Tailscale, so the DB path reports "Staging server … is not reachable. Run etl pr first or wait for the staging build to finish" — which invites waiting for something that will never arrive here. Don't wait, and don't run etl pr for it. Fall back to the read-only routes in cloud-sandbox.md — https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/<slug>.config.json for a published chart, the public Datasette for variables and chart_dimensions — or ask the user to run the resolver locally and paste the output. This is a fallback for one environment, not a replacement: use the resolver with its DB wherever MySQL is reachable, since it does strictly more than the fallbacks do.

From an old static viz image, two routes, neither of which the popularity CSV can do alone:

1. The grapher static_viz table carries a grapherSlug column. That gives a slug, and the slug goes through the resolver above. Note this table is not mirrored to the public Datasette, so query a staging DB or the local dev DB (see /query-grapher-db) — which means a cloud session cannot reach it either, and the slug has to come from the user.
2. ai/static_viz_popularity/static_viz_popular.csv gives rank, the pages it appears on, views, authors and tags — useful context, but it has no slug or indicator column, so it cannot reach the data by itself.

If neither resolves it, ask. Guessing which dataset an old hand-drawn image was built from is how you rebuild the wrong chart.

The project tracks which viz is claimed, parked or already done in a shared tracker, and this skill deliberately does not read or write it — ask instead. If the user has not already said where this viz stands, ask before doing any work: a viz someone else is mid-way through, or one already finished, is worth an interruption rather than a duplicate.

Read reference/GOTCHAS.md → Data before you use a single column. Those checks are pre-flight, not post-mortem: a column whose name means something other than what it holds, an unasserted splice, a framing that stops holding partway through a series, and an over-claim repeated across the metadata each render as a plausible chart with nothing to grep for. They are how a run that raises no exception still publishes wrong numbers.

Then report what you found: which dataset, which version, and how many charts use it.

Step 2 — Check for newer data. Always, even when it is already in ETL

Two sides, and both are needed. The ETL side tells you whether a newer version in our catalog exists; only the producer side tells you whether newer data exists at all.

ETL side.

from etl.version_tracker import VersionTracker
df = VersionTracker().steps_df   # update_state, update_period_days, days_to_update, n_charts

update_state is one of Unknown / No updates known / Outdated / Minor update possible / Major update possible / Not yet used. Outdated means a newer version of that step already exists in the DAG — the viz is pointing at a stale vintage. Also read each garden dep's snapshot .dvc for date_published and date_accessed, and the garden .meta.yml for update_period_days.

Be clear about what this is: days_to_update is step version date + update_period_days, a proxy. VersionTracker's own docstring says so. It is DAG version arithmetic, not knowledge of the producer's release calendar.

Producer side — this is the part that needs the internet. Fetch the origin's url_main and search for the current release. Report what the producer publishes now against what the snapshot captured.

Version labels prove nothing. Producers replace the published file — and the codebook — without bumping a stated version and without a changelog. Compare the hosting platform's file-modification dates or hashes (an OSF API date_modified, an HTTP Last-Modified, a checksum) against the previous snapshot's date_accessed and md5. An unchanged version label is not evidence of unchanged data.

Two more traps worth carrying from /update-dataset:

• date_published and the year inside citation_full never update themselves. etl update clones the previous .dvc verbatim except date_accessed. Re-check both against the source.
• Producer prose can lag the producer's own tables. Trust the data over the landing page.

Then route, and never do the ingest or update inline:

Finding	Action
Not in ETL at all	hand off to /create-dataset
In ETL, newer release exists upstream	hand off to /update-dataset
In ETL, update_state is Outdated	a newer ETL version exists — repoint the viz at it
In ETL and current	say so explicitly, and proceed

"In ETL and current" is a real, reportable finding — say it rather than staying silent, so the user knows the check happened.

Step 3 — One checkpoint, before writing anything

Put the whole proposal in front of the user at once, and get an explicit go-ahead:

• the dataset and its vintage, plus what Step 2 found upstream
• what the viz shows, and how it differs from the image it replaces
• which template(s), and desktop and/or mobile
• the author credit and the license line — the templates leave Licensed under CC-BY by the author [Name of author]. Propose the name(s) per the Author credit rules above, resolving the refresher from git config user.name, and say which of the two cases you think applies — that is also the moment to say out loud if the design change looks big enough to have crossed the scope rule. Whether CC-BY is correct cannot be inferred either: a source under CC BY-NC-SA is not automatically redistributable as CC-BY, so ask rather than filling the slot.

This mirrors /create-figma-chart's single-checkpoint rule, for the same reason: everything after here is expensive to redo.

Step 4 — Write the export://static_viz step

Read reference/WRITING-THE-STEP.md for this step.

Everything about authoring the step: the Figma handoff contract the emitted files have to satisfy, grapher's axis and tick treatment, encoding diagrams, pairing desktop with mobile, the template's text slots, labelling many categories, anchoring labels so they survive Figma, and the assertions to write.

Step 5 — Render, verify, and look at it

.venv/bin/etlr export://static_viz/<ns>/<version>/<short_name> --private --export

The --export flag is mandatory. Without it the step silently does not match, and the error says "No steps matched" while listing your step as the closest match.

From a fresh worktree, give it its own .venv before rendering. A worktree starts without one, and borrowing the main checkout's is a trap: etl is installed there editable via a .pth holding the main checkout's path, so paths.BASE_DIR resolves to the main checkout whatever your cwd is. etlr then loads the main checkout's copy of the step and writes the PNG/SVG next to it — the run reports Finished, your worktree's files never change, and that reads exactly like a no-op render.

make .venv                             # uv sync --all-extras --group dev; the pre-commit hook also does this
ln -s /path/to/main/checkout/data data # gitignored; the built deps only exist in the main checkout
.venv/bin/etlr export://... --private --export

Confirm before trusting a render: .venv/bin/python -c "from etl import paths; print(paths.BASE_DIR)" should print the worktree, and the log's "Saved chart to" path should too. Compare output mtimes against the step's own — an output older than the source means you are reading a stale file.

Editing the step's .py is enough to trigger a rebuild on its own, so you rarely need to force anything. For the narrow case where nothing in the repo changed but you still need to re-run, use --force --only — never --force alone, which would also re-run every upstream dependency. --only is safe here because the deps are already on disk from the run you are repeating.

Then, in this order:

1. Run the verifier, and always pass the data layers — without --expect-gid the naming check only proves some node was named, which a figure with a named title and an unnamed line satisfies:

   .venv/bin/python .claude/skills/create-static-viz/scripts/verify_static_viz.py <step-dir> \
       --template <name> --expect-gid <data-layer> [--expect-gid <data-layer> ...]
   

2. Read the PNG. The verifier cannot see a collision, a widow, or a label sitting on a curve. Every layout bug in this skill's Gotchas was found by looking.

Step 6 — Iterate with the user

Show the render. When a design choice is genuinely open, measure the options and offer the numbers, not adjectives — see the panel-aspect gotcha under Layout for why.

Step 7 — Hand off to /create-figma-chart

Give it the local SVG path. That skill's Step 1/3 cover the local-file route: there is nothing to export, and none of the .metadata.json text sourcing applies because the text is already in the file. Its upload_assets import is already file-based.

The one adaptation: its Steps 7–8 look up grapher's node names (connectors, horizontal-grid-lines, datapoints__<Entity>). Ours are the gids from Step 4 — hand over the naming scheme along with the file.

Use grapher's OWN names for the data layers wherever the shape matches, because that skill's Step 8c checks key off them and skip when they are absent. Measured on a real DI frame drawn by a local generator — nine panels, nine series lines, 27 direct labels, all correct — seven rows skipped for want of a name: series-weight, furniture-weight, polylines, label-contrast-on-background, colour-vision and grayscale-seams, and the palette read the chart as a single-colour palette of the panel fill, never seeing the series colour. Nothing failed and nothing was silently passed — each row named what it could not find — but the coverage behind "no mechanical row failed" was far thinner than the same sentence on a grapher import. So emit gid="line__<Entity>" for a series line, label__<Entity> for a direct label, and horizontal-grid-lines for the gridline group, rather than inventing a scheme. Renaming in Figma afterwards works but does not survive a re-import; the gid does.

Note what a gid actually produces: matplotlib writes <g id="label__Ghana"><text/></g>, so Figma imports a GROUP named label__Ghana holding a TEXT named Ghana — the name lands on the wrapper, never on the painted node, and a series arrives with Figma's own "Clip path group" wrappers between the named group and the vector. That is fine and expected; /create-figma-chart's rows resolve through the naming ancestor. Set the gid on the artist and don't try to name the glyph itself.

Step 8 — Record the Figma handoff in the step's docstring

Once the Figma page exists, write the handoff back into the step's module docstring. The bar is that a later session can redo the whole thing from this file alone — a different person, months on, with none of this conversation and no memory of the run. Not notes on what was done: a recipe.

That bar is the point of the step. Everything about the handoff lives in one of two places — this file, or a session transcript that vanishes. Whatever is only in the transcript gets re-derived by trial and error at the next data update, which is how the numbers drift and how a deliberate design decision quietly becomes an accident. So write it down even when it feels obvious today.

Record, concretely:

• Where. File name and key, the page name and where it sits in the page order, each frame's name, and the template node id and size it was cloned from. Names, not just a link: a node-id is stable but says nothing about what to reproduce.
• The import mechanics that are not obvious. How the SVG gets in (upload_assets + POST, never createNodeFromSvg), that the wrapper frame is binned and why, and the scale factor with its derivation — plus its self-correcting form, so a reader can check the number rather than trust it.
• Every text slot: what fills it and which parts are bold. A table, because setting characters flattens the mixed weights the templates ship.
• Any position that is derived rather than taken from the template's fixed y, with the arithmetic.
• Every color, as its library style name and key, plus how anything derived from it (band tints) is computed. A hex alone is unreproducible — nobody can tell whether it came from the palette.
• The in-plot restyle: each type rank with its size and weight, and the anchor rule per label family.
• The fit, and whether a rescale is wanted (usually not, and why not).
• The audit numbers to expect, so the next run can tell success from a near-miss.

Two things that belong here and are easy to leave out. The order operations must run in where one depends on another settling — widths settle on the next call; a coordinate patch after a fit uses anchors the fit has already invalidated. And any deviation accepted on purpose — an off-ladder size, a grayscale seam that does not gate — with its reason, so a later audit reads it as a decision rather than a defect.

Write it in the imperative, as the step's own reference. If you catch yourself writing "we changed X", rewrite it as "set X to Y, because Z": the reader wants to reproduce the state, not the history.

Step 9 — PR and the review chain

The branch, worktree and draft PR already exist from Step 4. Run make check before committing — the step is ordinary ETL code and has to be formatted, linted and typechecked like any other. Then commit the step plus its committed PNG/SVG, push, and fill in the PR body — whose first line is the attribution blockquote, > _Written by Claude <model name> — @<handle> at the wheel._, because the body goes out under a human's identity. It is required on every comment you post to the PR afterwards too, replies to the review included. Then /pr-babysitter for the Codex round. Brief the babysitter with the deliberate decisions (see the babysitter gotcha under Workflow).

The code review is only the first of several. The project defines the rest, and they are people, not checks — from #2459's workflow, with the parts this skill touches in bold:

1. Check for new data and identify where the image is used — Steps 1–2 here, plus a /find-chart-references sweep for every page that renders it. Static viz is classified embed, so a URL redirect does not fix it; each surface is a manual swap.
2. Find dependencies — other charts on the same page, or other charts on the same data, that would now disagree with the refreshed one.
3. Consult the author — required when the image sits on an article. Topic pages are evergreen: update directly, and update the surrounding text. For an article, whether to publish an updated version at all is the author's call.
4. Child issue opened (Bertha).
5. Pull the data, rebuild, import to Figma — Steps 4–7 here.
6. Review as needed (Bertha) → design review with @mrwbkrm, mandatory → final edits → final review with @edomt.
7. Upload the refreshed image under a new filename and repoint the references. The API rejects a duplicate name, and the old file must stay reachable for anything still pointing at it.
8. Accompanying text edited (Bertha and the author).

Report which of these are done and which are outstanding — the surrounding prose in particular tends to be forgotten, and a corrected chart under an uncorrected caption is worse than neither.

Finally, remind the user to set the viz's status in the tracker themselves, and give them the PR link to record against it. This skill never reads or writes the tracker — it is a shared team database, the person running the refresh knows the state of their own queue, and a status is a claim about human intent that an automated flow should not be making.