mcpField
R
rag-pipeline

rag-pipeline

github.com/brightdataDevelopment268198 installsUpdated 2w ago
Repository

About rag-pipeline

rag-pipeline is a Bright Data Discover architecture skill for developers building web-grounded LLM applications or search engines. It covers live retrieval, vector-store ingestion, and hybrid designs, with guidance on citations and content validation.

Key features

  1. 01Plan live retrieval and ingestion architectures
  2. 02Retrieve and rank web content with Discover
  3. 03Build chunking, embedding, and vector-search flows
  4. 04Preserve source links and validate citations
  5. 05Use JavaScript and Python examples

Use cases

  1. 01Ground web Q&A in current sources
  2. 02Ingest web pages into a vector knowledge base
  3. 03Combine an existing index with live search

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/brightdata/skills --skill rag-pipeline

After installing, type/rag-pipelinein Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled filesreferences/code.md

Details

From the project README

Bright Data — RAG / Search-Engine Pipeline

Use Discover as the retrieval layer for an LLM app or a custom search engine. Discover already returns intent-ranked, relevance-scored results with parsed page content, so it does the "search + fetch + clean" stage of RAG for you. This is a code/architecture skill built on the discover-api skill — read that for API mechanics (trigger/poll, modes, params, limits).

Pick the right neighbor: a written brief → live-research; markdown of specific URLs you already have → scrape; structured platform records → data-feeds.

Two architectures — choose first

Does the corpus change every query, or is it a stable knowledge base?

  ├── Per-query, always-fresh ("ground each answer in live web data")
  │     → LIVE RETRIEVAL: Discover(include_content) at query time → top-k → LLM
  │       Pros: always current, no storage. Cons: per-query latency + cost.
  │
  └── Reused across many queries ("build a knowledge base / search engine")
        → INGESTION: Discover(include_content) → chunk → embed → vector store
          then at query time: embed query → vector search → (rerank) → LLM
          Pros: fast queries, cacheable. Cons: can go stale (re-ingest on a schedule).

Many systems do both: an ingested base for breadth + a live Discover call for freshness, merged before the LLM.

Live retrieval (web-grounded answers)

Pattern: on each user question, run Discover with a sharp intent, take the top-k by relevance_score, and pass their content as context to the LLM. The LLM cites the links.

import { bdclient } from '@brightdata/sdk';
const client = new bdclient(); // BRIGHTDATA_API_TOKEN

async function retrieve(question, k = 6) {
  const res = await client.discover(question, {
    intent: `authoritative sources that directly answer: ${question}`,
    includeContent: true,
    numResults: Math.min(k * 2, 20),  // over-fetch, then trim
  });
  // NOTE: the JS SDK returns a WRAPPER object, not a bare array:
  //   { success, data: [ {link,title,description,relevance_score,content?} ], totalResults, cost, taskId, ... }
  // The result rows are in `.data` (CLI/REST use `.results` instead — see discover-api).
  if (!res.success) throw new Error(`discover failed: ${res.error ?? 'unknown'}`);
  return (res.data ?? [])
    .filter(r => r.content && !/just a moment|captcha|access denied|not found/i.test(r.content) && r.content.length > 200)
    .sort((a, b) => b.relevance_score - a.relevance_score)
    .slice(0, k);
}
// → build a prompt from sources[].content, ask the LLM to answer WITH [n] citations to sources[].link

Full prompt-assembly + citation pattern: references/code.md.

Ingestion (build a vector knowledge base / search engine)

Pattern: discover broadly (high volume — zeroRanking via REST is ideal here), chunk each page's content, embed the chunks, upsert into a vector store with the source URL as metadata. At query time: embed the query, vector-search, optionally rerank, then feed to the LLM.

Stages: discover → dedup → chunk → embed → upsert (ingest), then embed query → search → rerank → generate (serve). Provider-agnostic code for both stages, including chunking and metadata, is in references/code.md.

For bulk corpus building, prefer the raw REST "mode":"zeroRanking" flow (max raw results, no ranking) from the discover-api skill — but note it ignores num_results and does not support include_content, so you fetch content separately (Discover standard/deep with content, or the scrape skill).

Design rules

  • Store provenance. Every chunk keeps its source link (and ideally title + relevance_score). RAG without citations is unverifiable.
  • Chunk for the model, not the page. ~500–1500 tokens with overlap; split on headings/paragraphs, not mid-sentence.
  • Validate content before embedding. Skip block pages and empty bodies (oversized PDFs return null content). Embedding garbage poisons retrieval.
  • Over-fetch then trim by relevance_score. Discover's score is a strong prior for top-k selection before (or instead of) a reranker.
  • Re-ingest on a schedule if freshness matters — web content drifts. The ingested base goes stale; live retrieval doesn't.
  • Cap and dedup. num_results ≤ 20 per call; dedup by normalized URL across calls so one article via three aggregators isn't triple-weighted.
  • Keep the embedder/vector store pluggable. Discover is the retrieval source; the embedding model and vector DB are your choice — don't hardwire one.

Verification gate

  1. Retrieval returns non-empty, on-topic chunks for a known test query (eyeball top-k links).
  2. No block-page / empty content made it into the index — spot-check stored chunks.
  3. Citations resolve — every [n] the LLM emits maps to a real source link in the retrieved set.
  4. Freshness is honored — if the app promises current data, confirm live retrieval (or a recent re-ingest), not a stale index.
  5. Grounding check — answers are supported by retrieved content, not the model's prior; test with a question whose answer only exists in a retrieved page.

Red flags

  • Building an ingestion pipeline when the user needs fresh answers (use live retrieval), or hammering Discover live when a cached index would do.
  • Embedding content without filtering block pages / nulls.
  • Dropping source URLs — you can't cite or refresh what you didn't store.
  • Treating num_results as unlimited (cap 20) or expecting include_content under zeroRanking.
  • Letting the LLM answer from training data — enforce "answer only from provided sources; if absent, say so."
  • One giant chunk per page (kills retrieval precision) or mid-sentence splits.

References

  • references/code.md — runnable JS + Python for both architectures: live retrieval with prompt+citation assembly, and the full ingestion pipeline (discover → dedup → chunk → embed → upsert → query), with a provider-agnostic embedder/vector-store interface.

Related skills

  • discover-api — the retrieval API (trigger/poll, modes, include_content, limits). Read first.
  • live-research — one-off synthesized report instead of a standing system.
  • scrape — fetch markdown for specific URLs you already have.
  • js-sdk-best-practices / python-sdk-best-practices — client.discover() option details and batch patterns.

Comments

Markdown supported