Skip to main content

Product Ideas Pipeline

Filter by Idea Status

Filter by Topic

1312 Ideas

Anders Brakestad
Seasoned ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Anders BrakestadSeasoned ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Atlas Skills are very hard to use in a devops settingGathering Interest

Hi!The Q2 Product Release describes the new Atlas Skills feature as “reusable, lifecycle-managed assets”. In my experience the current designmakes skills very hard to reuse makes it impossible to manage their lifecycleReusing skillsTo reuse skills means to me that I can add skills to my agents that have been authored by someone else for another use case. The agent builder in CDF lets me add new skills in two different ways:Search among the skills already added to the agent Upload a skill markdown fileSo the only way to reuse a skill is to download a skill from another agent and re-upload it to my agent? There is no lifecycle management here. Skill versions will become stale very quickly. You have no idea whether your skill is up to date or not.There is no repository of skills where I can search for something relevant to me. I have no idea what skills have already been created. There is no way to inspect a skill once it has been added to my agent (I need to download it locally). Is there any versioning of skills? No devopsThere is no real devops integration with the current design. I am using a modular setup for defining my agents:recipes/agents/my-agent/|-- config.yaml|-- instructions.md|-- skills| |-- skill-1| | `-- SKILL.md| `-- skill-2| `-- SKILL.md`-- tools.yamlThe point is that skills are defined in their own files. There is nothing dramatic about this modular setup, and you might say it adheres to normal practices. But, how do I get these skills added to my agent? As far as I know, I cannot reference these files to the toolkit and expect them to end up with my agent. This is very different from how tools are added to the agents. Here is my painful workaround:Deploy agent to CDF with toolkit without the skills Duplicate the agent so I get a personal copy Upload my skill files to this new copy Dump new copy using cdf dump agents Copy the skills section with external ids into my original agent specification Deploy agent to CDF with external ids to the skills produced in step 3.We need the features to support standard workflows. As a user I expect production grade releases to offer production grade solutions. DocumentationWhere is the skills feature documented? I am unable to find it. The Q2 Product Release refers to this page, but nowhere under Atlas AI are the skills documented.

Anders Brakestad
Seasoned ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Anders BrakestadSeasoned ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Support modular, file-based agent definitions in the Toolkit (skills + Python tools)Gathering Interest

SummaryThe Cognite Toolkit forces an agent to be defined as a single monolithic YAML file — config (name, id, description, LLM), instructions, the skills list (external IDs to pre-existing skills), and tools (including inline Python source) all in one file. We need a modular, file-structure-based agent definition that the toolkit parses at deploy time, so skills and Python tools can live as standalone, testable, version-controlled source files that are created and attached to the agent automatically on deploy. Pain pointsThe monolithic YAML blocks normal DevOps practice (isolation, unit tests, review, reuse). Concretely:Skills cannot be deployed from source. A skill should be an isolated directory containing a SKILL.md (possibly other supporting files as well, as per the emerging standard). But the toolkit references a skill only by external ID — the skill must already exist in CDF. There is no way to point the toolkit at a SKILL.md and have it create and attach the skill on the fly during deploy. Python tool code is trapped inline. Executable Python tools embed their source directly in the agent YAML, so the code cannot be unit-tested or run standalone during development. Functions already support a modular layout — a directory with utilities/supporting Python files that gets packaged on deploy — and Python tools should work the same way.My opinion is that you need to keep these things in mind whenever you introduce new features. We as the users need to be enabled to use workflows that follow best practices. Devops should not be an afterthought, but be baked in from the start.

Gunnar AndreasSeasoned ⭐️⭐️

Configuration of the default View in Search, and the order they appear in SearchGathering Interest

With the data modelling framework, most models will end up with a significant number of Views. Today we are not able to control the order the Views are presented in a good way. By reverse engineering it seems like the order of the Views is based on The order of the (first mentioned) CDM extension in the model definition. Alle non-CDM Views are listed at the end, irrespectively whether it is listed before CDM or not  What is considered a CDM extension by the UI is not based on the implements, but whether it reference at least one property from one of the CDM containers Inside each Category (eg, a specific CDM extension, or the non-CDM Views), the order in the model definition dictates the orderIf I choose alphabetic sorting it seems to only affect the non-CDM-Views, and not the order inside each CDM category. It do however put all the CDM categories first or last It is very inconvenient to use the order of appearance in the model definition as the way of sorting (we have to sort both the CDM extension, and then inside each category) since any change in the order will require pushing a new model definition to CDF.We need the ability to define the order it appears in the UI, independent of how it is listed in the model definition, and we need to be able to create groupings that do not follow the CDM extensions. Eg, we have maintenance information that are not a CogniteActivity extension, that we still want to group next to the other CogniteActivity extended maintenance information.The CDM based grouping is more relevant from a model developer point of view, and not that much from an end user point of view.We also need the ability to define what is the default View. Right now it seems to be the first View in the model definition that is a CogniteAsset extension.When changing location filer, it always reset to the (non-configurable) default, which we see create a lot of initial confusion with the users. Since the CDM Views are not explicitly described in our model, we do not see the CDM based grouping. 

Kubota MamiSeasoned ⭐️⭐️

【Canvas】Feature Request: Improvements for Canvas Usability and Operational EfficiencyGathering Interest

We create a Canvas like the attached example once a month to monitor long-term trends of key operational parameters.Previously, this work was done using Excel, but we have recently migrated to Charts and Canvas.As we move toward full-scale operational use, we would appreciate your support in resolving the following two challenges.These improvements are critical for reducing operational workload and enabling sustainable use of Canvas for monthly monitoring.Request ①We previously requested a permission transfer feature for Charts. However, it is currently difficult to locate individual Charts from within Canvas.Cognite HubTherefore, we would like to request the following enhancement:Ability to select Charts directly within Canvas and transfer their ownership/permissions in bulkWithout this capability, when the responsible person changes, users must first locate all relevant Charts individually and then manually duplicate them one by one. This process is time-consuming and creates a significant operational burden. Request ②When downloading the entire Canvas as it is, each Chart becomes too small to view clearly, making the feature practically unusable.Each month, we include “Special Notes” (as shown in the attached example) and review selected Charts together with those notes.Therefore, we would like to request the following functionality:Ability to select specific Charts on Canvas and:Extract only the selected Charts Automatically format them into an A4-sized layout Export both the visual output and the underlying data (CSV)This feature would enable us to generate clear and usable reports for monthly reviews. Resolving these issues is essential for enabling effective operational use of Canvas.We would greatly appreciate your consideration and support.

Prashant ChauhanPractitioner ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Dynamic Space Assignment in DB Extractor QueriesGathering Interest

Problem StatementThe Cognite DB Extractor currently requires space to be a static, query-level configuration parameter, forcing users to create multiple identical extraction queries when distributing data across spaces based on hierarchical entity relationships.When working with hierarchical data structures, each distinct parent entity requires a separate extraction query, even if the source data and transformations are identical.Asset hierarchy:L1: Assets  L2: Area L3: Field (defines CDF space) L4: Installation L5: WellCurrently, if there are 10 distinct fields across multiple assets, the DB Extractor requires 10 separate extraction queries to distribute timeseries data across 10 spaces - one query per field, even though they all read from the same source table with identical transformations. With multiple assets, areas, and fields, this results in hundreds of extraction queries for a single source table. This creates:Configuration Bloat: Hundreds of nearly identical YAML configurations to maintain Filter Duplication: Adding or modifying a filter condition requires updating hundreds of queries Scheduling Overhead: The same database table is scanned multiple times per ingestion cycle instead of once Resource Inefficiency: Hundreds of independent jobs running on the same data multiplies query load Error Management: One failed field extraction leaves only that space with stale data; manual recovery required per space Maintenance Burden: Updating logic across all queries is error-prone and time-consuming Scalability: As fields are added or wells multiply, query count grows exponentiallyProposed Solution:Allow space to be derived dynamically from query result columns using template syntax, similar to how external_id is generated.

Oussama ALLALI
Seasoned ⭐️⭐️
Oussama ALLALISeasoned ⭐️⭐️

Transformations — Non-deterministic silent upsert when duplicate externalIds are split across workers: request for configurable deduplication strategyGathering Interest

Observed behaviorWhen a CDF Transformation produces rows with duplicate externalId values , the behavior depends on how CDF partitions the data across workers:Duplicates within the same API request (same batch) → the API raises an error → the transformation fails visibly ✅ Duplicates split across multiple API requests (different CDF partitions/workers) → each request succeeds individually → the transformation completes with status "success", but which version of the node was actually written to the knowledge graph is unknown and non-deterministic ❌ProblemThe second case is the dangerous one:Silent and invisible — the run reports success, no alert is triggered, no engineer investigates. The data in the knowledge graph may be incomplete or wrong with no trace. Non-deterministic — which duplicate "wins" depends entirely on which CDF worker flushes first. Two identical runs on the same input can produce different results. No user control — there is no way to express intent: "fail if duplicates exist", "always keep the latest", "deduplicate before write". The behavior is undefined and undocumented at the transformation level.Feature RequestAdd a conflict resolution option at the transformation level for duplicate externalId within a single run: Option Behavior fail Abort the run and report an error if any duplicate externalId is detected across all batches keep_last Last row processed wins deduplicate_before_write CDF deduplicates globally before dispatching to the API