spotifyJun 3, 2026

Encoding Your Domain Expert: The Context Layer Behind Spotify's Data Assistant | Spotify Engineering (opens in new tab)

Spotify’s data assistant, Vedder, relies less on model size than on carefully curated domain context. With more than 70,000 datasets, schemas alone cannot capture business definitions, data quality issues, or preferred query patterns. Spotify’s solution is a cluster-based context layer owned by domain experts, making AI-generated SQL more reliable, transparent, and maintainable. ## Why Schemas Alone Are Not Enough - Spotify has petabytes of data across more than 70,000 datasets, making it impossible to provide an LLM with the entire warehouse. - Even large context windows cannot represent all available schemas effectively. - Schema types and column names omit critical meaning, such as: - Which values represent test or legacy data - What “active user” means in a particular domain - Which tables or columns are authoritative - Without this context, an AI assistant may confidently choose the wrong dataset. ## Spotify’s Data Agent - Users ask questions in natural language, and the agent: - Selects the relevant context - Generates SQL - Executes it against the warehouse - Returns the answer, query, and sources - It uses a ReAct loop to reason, call tools, inspect results, and revise its approach. - Users can see how an answer was produced rather than receiving an opaque result. - The assistant is available through: - Slack - An MCP server for IDEs and AI tools - A dedicated web interface - Since August 2025, it has supported more than 2,100 users, 13,000 conversations, and 60,000 messages across 177 domain clusters. ## The Cluster Model Spotify organizes data domains into “clusters,” each owned by a named team of experts. A cluster contains: - **Datasets** - Relevant warehouse tables with schemas and profiling - Column cardinality, common values, and partition information - Details that help the model construct accurate filters and queries - **Pairs** - Expert-approved natural-language questions paired with SQL - Examples of both query patterns and domain semantics - **Docs** - Business terminology and definitions - Known data pitfalls - Guidance about which columns to use or avoid Clusters can represent organizations, initiatives, or specialized areas of interest. Domain experts decide what belongs in each cluster and which examples best represent correct practice. ## Why Human Curation Matters - Spotify considered automatically generating training pairs from historical query logs. - That approach produced unreliable results because query history contains: - Exploratory analysis - Debugging queries - One-off investigations - Incorrect table choices - Technically valid but misleading patterns - Cluster curators accepted only 12.5% of the proposed question-SQL pairs. - Experts therefore determine what is canonical and trustworthy, while the model uses that curated knowledge to answer more users. - The goal is not to replace data specialists, but to scale their judgment and expertise. ## Keeping Context Current - Data models and business logic change continuously. - Cluster health scores monitor signals such as: - Underlying data quality - Whether curated SQL still works after schema changes - Coverage of users’ real questions - Reproducibility of generated SQL - Renamed columns or deprecated tables can immediately reduce the validity of existing examples. - Cluster owners use health dashboards and recommended actions to prioritize maintenance. ## Learning from Every Conversation - Vedder records conversations, queries, answers, generated SQL, and user feedback. - Cluster owners use this information to identify missing documentation, weak examples, and emerging needs. - Each approved example or clarified definition improves future answers. - The system treats context as an ongoing product that requires ownership and maintenance, not a one-time upload of metadata. Spotify’s approach suggests that trustworthy enterprise AI depends on a maintained context layer: curated datasets, expert-approved examples, clear documentation, and continuous feedback. The model supplies reasoning and automation, but domain experts remain responsible for defining what the data means.

model-context-protocolaillmslack+4

spotifyFeb 19, 2026

Background Coding Agents: Predictable Results Through Strong Feedback Loops (Honk, Part 3) | Spotify Engineering (opens in new tab)

Spotify argues that unsupervised coding agents become reliable only when surrounded by strong, automated feedback loops. Its “Honk” system uses component-specific verifiers, mandatory pre-PR checks, and an LLM judge to catch build failures, test failures, scope creep, and functionally incorrect changes. The conclusion is that constrained, sandboxed agents with rich verification are more predictable than flexible agents operating independently. ## Failure Modes at Scale - Agents may fail to produce a pull request, which is inconvenient but usually manageable. - They may produce PRs that fail CI, leaving engineers to repair incomplete work. - Most seriously, they may produce PRs that pass CI but are functionally wrong and potentially reach production. - These failures are more likely when components lack tests, agents modify code beyond the prompt, or agents cannot correctly run builds and tests. - Reviewing invalid or nonsensical PRs can become a significant engineering time sink. ## Verification Loops - Honk uses independent verifiers that provide incremental feedback while the agent works. - Verifiers activate automatically based on the repository contents; for example, a Maven verifier runs when a root-level `pom.xml` is present. - The agent sees an abstract MCP tool rather than the implementation details of Maven, test runners, or build systems. - Verifiers handle formatting, compilation, testing, and output parsing, returning concise error messages instead of consuming the agent’s context with raw logs. - All applicable verifiers run before a PR is opened. In Claude Code, this is enforced with a stop hook. - If verification fails, the PR is blocked and the user receives an error. ## An LLM as a Judge - Deterministic checks cannot detect every problem, especially when an agent makes unnecessary refactors or disables flaky tests. - Honk therefore sends the original prompt and proposed diff to a separate LLM judge. - The judge runs after the regular verifiers and can veto changes that exceed the requested scope. - Across thousands of sessions, the judge rejects roughly one quarter of proposed changes. - Agents successfully correct about half of the vetoed changes. - Spotify has not yet built formal evaluations for the judge, but observed that scope violations are its most common reason for rejection. ## Constrained Agents and Sandboxing - The agent has limited responsibilities: inspect the relevant code, edit files, and invoke verification tools. - Surrounding infrastructure handles prompt creation, pushing code, and user communication through systems such as Slack. - Restricting the agent’s capabilities improves predictability and provides security benefits. - Agents run in heavily sandboxed containers with limited permissions, few installed binaries, and almost no access to surrounding systems. - Spotify reports that agents solve increasingly complex tasks reliably when these feedback loops are present, but often produce unusable code without them. ## Future Expansion - Spotify plans to support more hardware and operating systems. - Current verifiers run only on Linux x86, limiting support for systems that require macOS, such as iOS applications, or ARM64 environments. - The company also intends to integrate Honk more deeply with existing CI/CD pipelines. The practical recommendation is to treat autonomous coding as an infrastructure and verification problem, not merely a prompting problem: keep agents narrowly scoped, isolate them securely, and require layered automated checks before accepting their changes.

model-context-protocolllmai-agentclaude-code+4