Stay Ahead in Data Engineering

Join thousands of data engineers and leaders who receive our weekly newsletter. Get insights, best practices, and exclusive content delivered to your inbox.

No spam. Unsubscribe at any time.

Insights that move the needle

Every edition is packed with actionable content — from deep-dive technical articles to strategic perspectives on where data engineering is headed.

Expert Insights

Data engineering best practices, architectural patterns, and industry trends from practitioners who've been in the trenches.

Product Updates

Be the first to know about new Belvedere features, platform capabilities, and integration announcements.

Exclusive Content

Guides, templates, and resources available only to subscribers — practical tools you can use immediately.

What We've Been Writing About

The Foundation Behind Reliable AI Agent Analytics

The Foundation Behind Reliable AI Agent Analytics

Haydn StraussHaydn Strauss4 min readAnalyticsPublished June 16, 2026

Anthropic recently published how it runs self-service analytics on Claude. One result caught my eye: context + skills took its analytics agent from 21% accuracy to consistently above 95%.

Highlighting that generating SQL is the easy part, the hard part is everything underneath it: canonical datasets, a semantic layer, lineage, maintained skills, and provenance on every answer.

That jump came from the foundation, not a bigger model. With the context right, the agent on top matters much less.

Why Agents Alone Fail

In addition to cost, three context problems keep coming up.

  • Entity ambiguity. "Active users" or "revenue" has several definitions in the warehouse. The agent picks one and writes correct SQL against the wrong data.

  • Staleness. The definition was right when written. Then the pipeline changed and the skill was never updated.

  • Retrieval failure. The right definition exists somewhere, but the agent can't find it, or grabs the wrong version.

Two of these, staleness and retrieval, can't be fixed easily by prompting alone. They need the context to be a versioned, owned asset wired to the pipeline it describes.

Anthropic tried the shortcut of handing the agent the raw query corpus, and accuracy barely moved. As they put it: "The information was there, the agent saw it, and it still didn't use it."

From Belvedere Pipeline to Flue Agents: A Skeptical Pick of the 2026 World Cup Winner

From Belvedere Pipeline to Flue Agents: A Skeptical Pick of the 2026 World Cup Winner

Haydn StraussHaydn Strauss9 min readAnalysisPublished June 9, 2026

We build AI systems for a living. In production today, that means LangGraph wired into Belvedere: governed pipelines, human approvals, audit trails, provenance, etc.

But for this project, I wanted to kick the tires on something new: Flue, the agent framework from the Astro team. I’ve long been a fan of Astro for web development, so when they released Flue, I wanted to take it for a spin.

Initially I went down the path of adding Flue to background tasks (bug ticket sync, feedback triage, opportunity discovery, etc), but then decided to build something a little more fun, an 'agentic analyst org' powered by Flue.

It's completely free to use if you want to head to https://www.belvederelabs.ai/ and try it out with your data.

Flue Analyst Org | Belvedere Labs: drop a CSV and get an analyst's answer in a couple of minutes.

The data: 3,759 international matches assembled by Belvedere

We did not hand-roll the dataset. We built it in Belvedere, the same governed pipeline system we use in production.

The pipeline ("World Cup International Match Dataset") is eight nodes and seven edges in the canvas that was assembled by connecting our source API and using the following prompt:

"Pull senior men's international football fixtures and per-match statistics from the API-Football REST API, then computes leak-free pre-match features with all available statistics"

OpenTofu vs. Terraform: Choosing an IaC Control Plane for Belvedere

OpenTofu vs. Terraform: Choosing an IaC Control Plane for Belvedere

Zech CranniganZech Crannigan5 min readProductPublished June 2, 2026

OpenTofu and Terraform solve nearly the same day-to-day problem. For Belvedere's current stack, AWS, EKS, Kubernetes, Helm, and Git-based CI/CD, the normal workflow is effectively equivalent: write HCL, use providers and modules, plan changes, apply through controlled automation.

The meaningful differences are licensing, governance, managed-service alignment, and how each tool handles state and plan artifacts.

For Belvedere's greenfield infrastructure work, OpenTofu fit the constraints we cared about most: open-source licensing, tool-layer state and plan encryption, active community governance, and portability across commercial, regulated, and customer-controlled environments.

Terraform remains a mature tool with the larger ecosystem, deeper HCP Terraform integration, and Terraform Stacks for teams centered on HashiCorp's managed control plane. Our decision was narrower: Belvedere was starting fresh, and OpenTofu gave us the Terraform-style workflow without taking on Terraform's current licensing and vendor-alignment tradeoffs.

Why This Matters

Infrastructure-as-code is not just deployment scripting. It becomes the control plane for cloud accounts, Kubernetes clusters, network boundaries, IAM, secrets-adjacent configuration, and recovery.