Build something that is not there yet
Allocate cloud and platform spend to teams and flag untagged cost
- When the cloud bill grew sharply month over month and nobody can attribute the increase to a team or product.
- When a chunk of spend sits untagged and gets silently folded into whichever team's allocation is largest.
Build cost allocation by team, product, and environment from billing exports using the agreed tag taxonomy and shared-cost method, with untagged-spend percentage and day-over-day spike flags. Covers allocation and flagging, not FinOps policy or chargeback billing.
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 `finops-cloud-allocation` at https://getvibedata.ai/cookbook/finops-cloud-allocation Read the Recipe and execute it in the context of the current Intent.
Recipe id finops-cloud-allocation · 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.
- allocated spend plus unallocated spend equals the invoice total for every period
- untagged spend is reported as its own percentage rather than distributed across tagged teams
- a day-over-day spike beyond the agreed threshold is flagged the day it occurs
- the shared-cost method applied (even split, usage-based, or headcount-based) matches what was agreed
Recipe promptThe task specification the agent reads. Reference only — it is not what you copy.
Deliver: Allocate cloud and platform spend to teams and flag untagged cost. Build cost allocation by team, product, and environment from billing exports using the agreed tag taxonomy and shared-cost method, with untagged-spend percentage and day-over-day spike flags. Covers allocation and flagging, not FinOps policy or chargeback billing. 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: - allocated spend plus unallocated spend equals the invoice total for every period - untagged spend is reported as its own percentage rather than distributed across tagged teams - a day-over-day spike beyond the agreed threshold is flagged the day it occurs - the shared-cost method applied (even split, usage-based, or headcount-based) matches what was agreed 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
- dlt 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
- the grain the requester expects, where the request leaves it open to more than one reading
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 and dlt in the project, or the intent to add it.
- Needs the shared-cost allocation method agreed up front.
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.