cwicr-data-validator

cwicr-data-validator is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from datadrivenconstruction/DDC_Skills_for_AI_Agents_in_Construction. It costs 30 tokens per session (3,115 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A checker for CWICR data and construction estimate inputs. It looks for missing or invalid values, unusual figures, duplicates, inconsistent entries, and formatting problems.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review CWICR datasets and estimate inputs, find errors and outliers, and document problems that need correction.
Why use it?
It catches data issues before they affect estimates, budgets, or project decisions. It also records issues by severity for review.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Which agent this was written for is unclear — built for openclaw. Also seen: built for openclaw.

Good fit Use it to review CWICR datasets and estimate inputs, find errors and outliers, and document problems that need correction.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/datadrivenconstruction/ddc_skills_for_ai_agents_in_construction/cwicr-data-validator
Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

Any agent
npx skills add datadrivenconstruction/DDC_Skills_for_AI_Agents_in_Construction --skill cwicr-data-validator
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/datadrivenconstruction/DDC_Skills_for_AI_Agents_in_Construction

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

agentmods badge for cwicr-data-validator

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/datadrivenconstruction/ddc_skills_for_ai_agents_in_construction/cwicr-data-validator/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/datadrivenconstruction/ddc_skills_for_ai_agents_in_construction/cwicr-data-validator)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/datadrivenconstruction/ddc_skills_for_ai_agents_in_construction/cwicr-data-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/datadrivenconstruction/ddc_skills_for_ai_agents_in_construction/cwicr-data-validator/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>

Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.

agentmods 80×15 button for cwicr-data-validator

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/datadrivenconstruction/ddc_skills_for_ai_agents_in_construction/cwicr-data-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/datadrivenconstruction/ddc_skills_for_ai_agents_in_construction/cwicr-data-validator.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 30 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 3,115 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00030 $0.03115
Opus 5 $0.00015 $0.01558
Sonnet 5 $0.00006 $0.00623
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00312

Measured 12d ago against content hash 3a32f618a943, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-11, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

cwicr-data-validator scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

Origin

Copies of this mod

1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:

1_DDC_Toolkit/CWICR-Database/cwicr-data-validator/SKILL.md · 438 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 438 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

CWICR Data Validator

Business Case

Problem Statement

Data quality issues cause:

  • Incorrect estimates
  • Budget overruns
  • Delayed projects
  • Rework costs

Solution

Systematic validation of CWICR data and estimate inputs to catch errors, outliers, and inconsistencies before they impact projects.

Business Value

  • Error prevention - Catch issues early
  • Data quality - Ensure reliable estimates
  • Consistency - Standard validation rules
  • Audit trail - Document data issues

Technical Implementation

import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
from typing import Dict, Any, List, Optional, Tuple
from dataclasses import dataclass, field
from enum import Enum
from datetime import datetime


class ValidationSeverity(Enum):
    """Validation issue severity."""
    ERROR = "error"          # Must fix
    WARNING = "warning"      # Should review
    INFO = "info"            # For awareness


class ValidationCategory(Enum):
    """Validation categories."""
    MISSING_DATA = "missing_data"
    INVALID_VALUE = "invalid_value"
    OUTLIER = "outlier"
    DUPLICATE = "duplicate"
    INCONSISTENT = "inconsistent"
    FORMAT = "format"


@dataclass
class ValidationIssue:
    """Single validation issue."""
    field: str
    record_id: str
    category: ValidationCategory
    severity: ValidationSeverity
    message: str
    current_value: Any
    expected: str


@dataclass
class ValidationResult:
    """Complete validation result."""
    total_records: int
    valid_records: int
    issues: List[ValidationIssue]
    error_count: int
    warning_count: int
    info_count: int
    validation_date: datetime
    passed: bool


class CWICRDataValidator:
    """Validate CWICR data and estimates."""

    # Standard validation rules
    REQUIRED_FIELDS = ['work_item_code', 'description', 'unit']
    NUMERIC_FIELDS = ['labor_cost', 'material_cost', 'equipment_cost', 'labor_norm']
    POSITIVE_FIELDS = ['labor_cost', 'material_cost', 'equipment_cost', 'quantity']

    # Outlier detection thresholds (IQR multiplier)
    OUTLIER_THRESHOLD = 3.0

    def __init__(self, cwicr_reference: pd.DataFrame = None):
        self.reference = cwicr_reference
        if cwicr_reference is not None:
            self._build_reference_stats()

    def _build_reference_stats(self):
        """Build reference statistics for outlier detection."""
        self._stats = {}

        for col in self.NUMERIC_FIELDS:
            if col in self.reference.columns:
                values = pd.to_numeric(self.reference[col], errors='coerce').dropna()
                if len(values) > 0:
                    self._stats[col] = {
                        'mean': values.mean(),
                        'std': values.std(),
                        'q1': values.quantile(0.25),
                        'q3': values.quantile(0.75),
                        'iqr': values.quantile(0.75) - values.quantile(0.25)
                    }

    def validate_dataframe(self, df: pd.DataFrame) -> ValidationResult:
        """Validate entire dataframe."""

        issues = []
        valid_count = 0

        for idx, row in df.iterrows():
            row_issues = self._validate_row(row, str(idx))
            issues.extend(row_issues)

            if not any(i.severity == ValidationSeverity.ERROR for i in row_issues):
                valid_count += 1

        # Check for duplicates
        if 'work_item_code' in df.columns:
            duplicates = df[df.duplicated(subset=['work_item_code'], keep=False)]
            for idx, row in duplicates.iterrows():
                issues.append(ValidationIssue(
                    field='work_item_code',
                    record_id=str(idx),
                    category=ValidationCategory.DUPLICATE,
                    severity=ValidationSeverity.WARNING,
                    message=f"Duplicate work item code: {row['work_item_code']}",
                    current_value=row['work_item_code'],
                    expected="Unique codes"
                ))

        error_count = sum(1 for i in issues if i.severity == ValidationSeverity.ERROR)
        warning_count = sum(1 for i in issues if i.severity == ValidationSeverity.WARNING)
        info_count = sum(1 for i in issues if i.severity == ValidationSeverity.INFO)

        return ValidationResult(
            total_records=len(df),
            valid_records=valid_count,
            issues=issues,
            error_count=error_count,
            warning_count=warning_count,
            info_count=info_count,
            validation_date=datetime.now(),
            passed=error_count == 0
        )

    def _validate_row(self, row: pd.Series, record_id: str) -> List[ValidationIssue]:
        """Validate single row."""

        issues = []

        # Check required fields
        for field in self.REQUIRED_FIELDS:
            if field in row.index:
                value = row[field]
                if pd.isna(value) or str(value).strip() == '':
                    issues.append(ValidationIssue(
                        field=field,
                        record_id=record_id,
                        category=ValidationCategory.MISSING_DATA,
                        severity=ValidationSeverity.ERROR,
                        message=f"Required field '{field}' is missing",
                        current_value=value,
                        expected="Non-empty value"
                    ))

        # Check numeric fields
        for field in self.NUMERIC_FIELDS:
            if field in row.index:
                value = row[field]
                if pd.notna(value):
                    try:
                        num_val = float(value)
                        # Check for negative where positive expected
                        if field in self.POSITIVE_FIELDS and num_val < 0:
                            issues.append(ValidationIssue(
                                field=field,
                                record_id=record_id,
                                category=ValidationCategory.INVALID_VALUE,
                                severity=ValidationSeverity.ERROR,
                                message=f"Negative value in '{field}'",
                                current_value=value,
                                expected="Positive number"
                            ))

                        # Check for outliers
                        if self._stats and field in self._stats:
                            stats = self._stats[field]
                            lower = stats['q1'] - self.OUTLIER_THRESHOLD * stats['iqr']
                            upper = stats['q3'] + self.OUTLIER_THRESHOLD * stats['iqr']

                            if num_val < lower or num_val > upper:
                                issues.append(ValidationIssue(
                                    field=field,
                                    record_id=record_id,
                                    category=ValidationCategory.OUTLIER,
                                    severity=ValidationSeverity.WARNING,
                                    message=f"Outlier value in '{field}'",
                                    current_value=value,
                                    expected=f"Between {lower:.2f} and {upper:.2f}"
                                ))

                    except (ValueError, TypeError):
                        issues.append(ValidationIssue(
                            field=field,
                            record_id=record_id,
                            category=ValidationCategory.INVALID_VALUE,
                            severity=ValidationSeverity.ERROR,
                            message=f"Non-numeric value in '{field}'",
                            current_value=value,
                            expected="Numeric value"
                        ))

        # Check work item code format
        if 'work_item_code' in row.index:
            code = row['work_item_code']
            if pd.notna(code) and not self._valid_code_format(str(code)):
                issues.append(ValidationIssue(
                    field='work_item_code',
                    record_id=record_id,
                    category=ValidationCategory.FORMAT,
                    severity=ValidationSeverity.INFO,
                    message="Non-standard code format",
                    current_value=code,
                    expected="CATEGORY-NUMBER format"
                ))

        return issues

    def _valid_code_format(self, code: str) -> bool:
        """Check if code follows expected format."""
        # Expect format like "CONC-001" or "EXCV-DEEP-002"
        parts = code.split('-')
        return len(parts) >= 2 and parts[0].isalpha()

    def validate_estimate(self,
                          items: List[Dict[str, Any]],
                          check_against_cwicr: bool = True) -> ValidationResult:
        """Validate estimate items."""

        issues = []
        valid_count = 0

        for i, item in enumerate(items):
            record_id = str(i)
            item_issues = []

            # Check required fields
            code = item.get('work_item_code', item.get('code'))
            if not code:
                item_issues.append(ValidationIssue(
                    field='work_item_code',
                    record_id=record_id,
                    category=ValidationCategory.MISSING_DATA,
                    severity=ValidationSeverity.ERROR,
                    message="Missing work item code",
                    current_value=None,
                    expected="Valid work item code"
                ))

            # Check quantity
            qty = item.get('quantity', 0)
            if qty <= 0:
                item_issues.append(ValidationIssue(
                    field='quantity',
                    record_id=record_id,
                    category=ValidationCategory.INVALID_VALUE,
                    severity=ValidationSeverity.ERROR,
                    message="Invalid quantity",
                    current_value=qty,
                    expected="Positive number"
                ))

            # Check against CWICR reference
            if check_against_cwicr and self.reference is not None and code:
                if 'work_item_code' in self.reference.columns:
                    if code not in self.reference['work_item_code'].values:
                        item_issues.append(ValidationIssue(
                            field='work_item_code',
                            record_id=record_id,
                            category=ValidationCategory.INVALID_VALUE,
                            severity=ValidationSeverity.WARNING,
                            message=f"Work item code not found in CWICR: {code}",
                            current_value=code,
                            expected="Valid CWICR code"
                        ))

            issues.extend(item_issues)

            if not any(i.severity == ValidationSeverity.ERROR for i in item_issues):
                valid_count += 1

        return ValidationResult(
            total_records=len(items),
            valid_records=valid_count,
            issues=issues,
            error_count=sum(1 for i in issues if i.severity == ValidationSeverity.ERROR),
            warning_count=sum(1 for i in issues if i.severity == ValidationSeverity.WARNING),
            info_count=sum(1 for i in issues if i.severity == ValidationSeverity.INFO),
            validation_date=datetime.now(),
            passed=all(i.severity != ValidationSeverity.ERROR for i in issues)
        )

    def get_data_quality_score(self, result: ValidationResult) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Calculate data quality score."""

        if result.total_records == 0:
            return {'score': 0, 'grade': 'N/A'}

        # Weighted scoring
        error_weight = 10
        warning_weight = 3
        info_weight = 1

        total_deductions = (
            result.error_count * error_weight +
            result.warning_count * warning_weight +
            result.info_count * info_weight
        )

        max_deductions = result.total_records * error_weight
        score = max(0, 100 - (total_deductions / max_deductions * 100)) if max_deductions > 0 else 100

        # Assign grade
        if score >= 95:
            grade = 'A'
        elif score >= 85:
            grade = 'B'
        elif score >= 75:
            grade = 'C'
        elif score >= 60:
            grade = 'D'
        else:
            grade = 'F'

        return {
            'score': round(score, 1),
            'grade': grade,
            'total_records': result.total_records,
            'valid_records': result.valid_records,
            'error_count': result.error_count,
            'warning_count': result.warning_count
        }

    def export_validation_report(self,
                                  result: ValidationResult,
                                  output_path: str) -> str:
        """Export validation report to Excel."""

        with pd.ExcelWriter(output_path, engine='openpyxl') as writer:
            # Summary
            quality = self.get_data_quality_score(result)
            summary_df = pd.DataFrame([{
                'Total Records': result.total_records,
                'Valid Records': result.valid_records,
                'Errors': result.error_count,
                'Warnings': result.warning_count,
                'Info': result.info_count,
                'Quality Score': quality['score'],
                'Grade': quality['grade'],
                'Validation Date': result.validation_date,
                'Passed': result.passed
            }])
            summary_df.to_excel(writer, sheet_name='Summary', index=False)

            # Issues
            if result.issues:
                issues_df = pd.DataFrame([
                    {
                        'Record': i.record_id,
                        'Field': i.field,
                        'Category': i.category.value,
                        'Severity': i.severity.value,
                        'Message': i.message,
                        'Current Value': str(i.current_value),
                        'Expected': i.expected
                    }
                    for i in result.issues
                ])
                issues_df.to_excel(writer, sheet_name='Issues', index=False)

        return output_path

Read the full file on GitHub · 438 lines

Files

What ships with it

2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 12d ago First seen · 438 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 3a32f618a943

Subscribe to this mod's changes

cwicr-data-validator is a skill published in the GitHub repository datadrivenconstruction/DDC_Skills_for_AI_Agents_in_Construction (308 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 3,115 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.