Build something that is not there yet
Unify consent and communication preferences with auditable latest-wins logic
- When a customer who opted out of email still gets a marketing send from a different system.
- When consent state is scattered across systems and nobody can show which event set the current state.
Unify consent and communication-preference events from multiple sources into a current state per channel and purpose, using latest-wins logic with the full audit trail kept underneath. Delivers the current state and a suppression list; pushing that list back into marketing or messaging tools is out of scope.
Sample This Recipe has not been materialized in the Cookbook repository yet. Its trigger, description, prompt, agent guidance and acceptance conditions, and the explanation below, are prototype drafts. Its name, job, area and readiness come from the reconciled Cookbook seed snapshot. Readiness is a separate question from this one: it says whether the capability exists, not whether the writing has been reviewed.
Use this Recipe
Use the VibeData Recipe `customer-consent-preferences` at https://getvibedata.ai/cookbook/customer-consent-preferences Read the Recipe and execute it in the context of the current Intent.
Recipe id customer-consent-preferences · Not yet materialized in the Cookbook repository, so the pointer addresses this page.
Verified by
What has to be observably true before this Recipe is finished.
- no channel-purpose pair shows two contradictory current states at once
- every current state traces back to a specific source event
- the suppression list contains every customer whose latest state is opted out
- a tie between two same-timestamp events resolves under the stated rule, not arbitrarily
Recipe promptThe task specification the agent reads. Reference only — it is not what you copy.
Deliver: Unify consent and communication preferences with auditable latest-wins logic. Unify consent and communication-preference events from multiple sources into a current state per channel and purpose, using latest-wins logic with the full audit trail kept underneath. Delivers the current state and a suppression list; pushing that list back into marketing or messaging tools is out of scope. Execute inside the current Intent. Its Domain, repository, platform, environment and attached sources are the context for this work — read them rather than asking for them. The work is done when: - no channel-purpose pair shows two contradictory current states at once - every current state traces back to a specific source event - the suppression list contains every customer whose latest state is opted out - a tie between two same-timestamp events resolves under the stated rule, not arbitrarily Report the evidence for each condition above with the result. A condition you cannot meet is something to say, not something to work around.
Agent guidanceHow the agent approaches the work, and what it will not do.
Profile the inputs the grain, joins and measures actually depend on before proposing a model. Put the design up for review — grain first — then build in an isolated copy with tests and documentation landing beside the model rather than after it.
Composes
- permission and billing reads
- dbt in the project
- isolated-copy execution and gate verification
Asks first
Semantic decisions the Intent cannot supply. Never context Studio already holds.
- which Fabric target this work lands on, when the Domain carries both a Lakehouse and a Warehouse
Guardrails
- Build in an isolated copy. Production is read, never written.
What you need
- Microsoft Fabric Lakehouse, Microsoft Fabric Warehouse, MotherDuck, or DuckDB.
- Read access to the billing or permission surface the work reads from.
- dbt in the project, or the intent to add it.
- Needs an agreed tie-break rule for same-timestamp events.
How it goes
- State the outcome in one sentence, in the language the request arrived in.
- Let it profile the inputs the grain, the joins and the measures actually depend on.
- Review the design. Disagreeing about grain here costs a sentence; after the model exists it costs a rewrite.
- Let it build in an isolated copy, with the tests and the documentation landing beside the model rather than after it.
- Read the acceptance conditions against the run.
What you end up with
The deliverable, in your own repository, as governance and cost work a reviewer who knows the project reads as native to it. Alongside it, the evidence for every one of the acceptance conditions above — which is the part that is still there in three weeks when somebody asks.