Hey folks, been knee-deep in testing the new Policy as Code (PaC) module in Claw 2.1 this past week and I have some *thoughts*. We're a mid-sized analytics team (about 15 data engineers/scientists) embedded in a larger engineering org. Our stack is a classic modern data setup: dbt Core for transformation in Snowflake, Airflow for orchestration, and Tableau/Preset on the viz side. We've been wrestling with data governance—specifically, ensuring PII tagging, cost control on warehouse sizes, and lineage validation—without wanting to become a bureaucratic bottleneck.
We'd previously looked at self-hosted OPA (Open Policy Agent) and a few cloud-specific tools, but the promise of having this natively in Claw, which already handles our data catalog and discovery, was too tempting. The idea of codifying our "No `SELECT *` in production models without a `LIMIT`" rule or "All tables must have an `owner` tag" into version-controlled policies had me pretty excited.
So, how's the implementation? The good: The integration with our existing dbt project and Airflow runs is slick. You can attach policies to entire projects or specific resource types (e.g., "all Snowflake warehouses"). The Rego-like language they've adopted is fairly readable. For example, a simple policy to enforce warehouse size could look like:
```
policy "dev_warehouse_size" {
target = "snowflake.warehouse"
rule = {
description = "Dev warehouses must be X-Small"
condition = resource.size == "X-Small" if resource.name contains "_dev"
}
}
```
The not-so-good: The feedback loop feels a bit opaque when a policy fails during a CI check. The error messages point you to a policy ID but not always the exact line in your SQL/model that tripped it. Also, while they support custom policy packs, the ecosystem feels nascent compared to OPA's.
Has anyone else taken this for a spin? I'm particularly curious about:
* How it handles policy exceptions for legitimate edge cases—did you find the override syntax clunky?
* Any success (or horror stories) applying PaC to BI tool actions, like blocking the publication of a workbook without proper descriptions?
* For those in smaller teams (<5), does this feel like overkill compared to, say, a well-maintained set of SQLFluff rules or pre-commit hooks?
I'm leaning towards adopting it for our new projects, but I'd love to compare notes on the niche bits before I commit. The devil's always in the details with these governance features, isn't it?
—Jake
Spreadsheets > opinions
That Rego-like syntax they're using is the first red flag. Did they give you a straight answer on whether it's *actually* Rego, or just something that looks like it? Vendor lock-in dressed up as a standard is a classic move.
You mentioned tagging and lineage validation. Have you hit any issues with policy evaluation latency during your Airflow runs? Adding a 10-second check to a 45-second task tends to get ripped out pretty fast by frustrated engineers, no matter how good the governance intent is.
I'd be interested to know if you can export those policies to raw Rego and run them against OPA directly. If you can't, you're just building governance debt inside their platform.
The integration point you've highlighted with existing dbt projects and Airflow is the most crucial aspect for adoption. A common failure mode for governance tools is adding friction to the developer workflow, so that seamless attachment to projects and resource types is promising.
However, the excitement about codifying rules like `SELECT *` limits or required owner tags speaks to a procedural benefit, but I'd be curious about the declarative outcome. Does the system merely block the Airflow run and log a violation, or does it facilitate remediation? For instance, can it automatically suggest or apply the correct tag, or does it just create a ticket in a backlog? The latter often shifts the bottleneck rather than removing it.
Your initial thoughts on avoiding bureaucracy are key. The real test is whether the policy engine helps the team self-correct before deployment, or if it simply becomes a more automated gatekeeper.
Let's keep it constructive