Decision guide
On this page
This page turns the evidence in 06 into a choice. It uses plain words and says where the evidence stops.
Short answer
For code work in Databricks (SQL, notebooks, jobs, pipelines, debugging), yes: a coding agent in the Databricks shell is a credible replacement for Genie Code, provided you pick the model and the guard rails on purpose. For ambient, in-product help, it is not a replacement (what is not replaced).
Pick a setup
%%{init: {'theme':'base','themeVariables':{'primaryColor':'#E8F0FE','primaryTextColor':'#1F2937','primaryBorderColor':'#A8C0E8','lineColor':'#94A3B8'}}}%%
flowchart TB
Q1{"Can you use a strong model?<br/>for example Gemini 3.8 Flash<br/>through your own API key"}:::blue
Q1 -- "Yes" --> A1["Setup A: stock Databricks CLI and skills<br/>plus our rules file and write fence<br/>(V6 style)"]:::green
Q1 -- "No, only gpt-oss-120b<br/>from the AI Gateway" --> Q2{"Will people run it<br/>unattended or on shared data?"}:::blue
Q2 -- "Yes" --> B1["Setup B: custom tool server with<br/>scoped writes, supervisor loop and<br/>report template (V4 style)"]:::yellow
Q2 -- "No, a person watches" --> B2["Setup B with the CLI added<br/>(V6 style)"]:::yellow
A1 --> G["In every case:<br/>service principal token, scratch schema only,<br/>read the report's 'odd or suspicious' section"]:::pink
B1 --> G
B2 --> G
classDef blue fill:#E8F0FE,stroke:#A8C0E8,color:#1F2937
classDef green fill:#E6F4EA,stroke:#A8D5B5,color:#1F2937
classDef yellow fill:#FFF8E1,stroke:#F2D98D,color:#1F2937
classDef pink fill:#FDE7EF,stroke:#F2B5CB,color:#1F2937| Setup | Best when | Score in our exams | Cost to build | Main risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A strong model + stock CLI and skills + rules | You can reach a strong model | Gemini V6: 99% dev, 100% held-out | Low: install, copy rules file | The plain CLI has no write fence; limit by token, not by words |
| B weaker model + our tool server | Only the gateway model is allowed | gpt-oss V4: 94% dev, 86% held-out | Medium: run the MCP server | Still fails some tasks (see failure catalogue in 06) |
| Stock only (V5) | You want zero custom code | gpt-oss 39% dev; Gemini 86% dev | Lowest | With a weak model it often returns nothing; hidden Genie shortcut (03) |
Do not choose by these numbers alone: each is a single run on small, clean data (06).
What a coding agent does not replace
| Genie Code feature | Replaced? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Help inside the notebook, SQL editor and Catalog screens | No | It lives in the product's own screens |
| Business-term understanding from the Genie ontology | Only by calling Genie from the agent | The agent has no copy of your business definitions |
| Automatic table context | Partly | Our exams named the tables. We did not test an agent that must discover the right table in a large catalogue |
| Analytical questions that depend on that context | Not shown by our exams | Keep Genie for these (spec §5) |
Our exams show strong results for well-specified tasks on known tables. They do not show the same for open-ended "figure out what we should look at" work on a large, messy catalogue.
Cost in plain words
We did not measure money, and we did not have Genie Code usage data to compare against (spec §9.3). What we can say:
- Genie Code is metered in DBUs after a monthly allowance. An external agent is metered in model tokens, plus the sandbox compute.
- Strong models read and write about three times as many tokens: 5 to 9 million per eight tasks, against 2 to 3 million for gpt-oss (06). A better score is not free.
- Tool descriptions are sent on every turn, so a lean tool list saves money on every task, forever.
- A lower price per token does not help if the agent fails and you rerun it: the setup with the most points per run is often the cheaper one.
Run a two-week pilot and measure before telling anyone a saving.
A rollout in four steps
%%{init: {'theme':'base','themeVariables':{'primaryColor':'#E8F0FE','primaryTextColor':'#1F2937','primaryBorderColor':'#A8C0E8','lineColor':'#94A3B8'}}}%%
flowchart LR
S1["1. Try it<br/>follow doc 02 in a<br/>scratch workspace"]:::blue --> S2["2. Fence it<br/>service principal,<br/>scratch schema,<br/>doc 04"]:::pink
S2 --> S3["3. Measure it<br/>run the exam suite<br/>on your model and<br/>your own tasks"]:::green
S3 --> S4["4. Decide<br/>compare score, tokens<br/>and review time<br/>against Genie Code"]:::yellow
classDef blue fill:#E8F0FE,stroke:#A8C0E8,color:#1F2937
classDef pink fill:#FDE7EF,stroke:#F2B5CB,color:#1F2937
classDef green fill:#E6F4EA,stroke:#A8D5B5,color:#1F2937
classDef yellow fill:#FFF8E1,stroke:#F2D98D,color:#1F2937- Try it. 02 Setup takes about an hour. The launcher notebook means no local shell is needed.
- Fence it. Create a service principal with rights on one scratch schema and folder; give its token to the sandbox (04).
- Measure it. Copy a mission file from
exams/missions/, write two or three tasks from your own work, and run them (05). - Decide. Compare score, tokens and the time a person spends reviewing the output.
Questions people ask
Can we use GitHub Copilot instead of OpenCode? Yes in principle, and it ran our exams. See 06 for scores and the proxy it needs in front of the Databricks gateway.
Do we need the custom tool server? With a strong model, no: Setup A uses the stock CLI. With the gateway's weaker model it was worth about 55 points in our exams (V4 94% against V5 39%).
Can the agent harm production? Yes, if it holds a powerful token. Words in a rules file do not stop a CLI command. Use a restricted token (04).
What if the model changes? Rerun the exams. That is what they are for.
Which parts are verified and which are advice? Every claim about what ran is backed by a file in exams/results/ or docs/e2e/. Recommendations such as the service principal are marked "not tested".
Back to the index.