postmark-email-best-practices

Use when asking about email deliverability, compliance (CAN-SPAM, GDPR, CASL), transactional email design patterns, list management, testing safely, or general email best practices — provider-agnostic knowledge with Postmark-specific guidance.

1.08x

Quality

74%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

87%

1.08x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./postmark-email-best-practices/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

78%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-executed reference skill: concise table-driven sections, concrete endpoints and thresholds, and an exemplary progressive-disclosure structure with all references verified to exist. The only improvements are minor — trimming the credibility preamble and adding one or two inline executable examples where details are entirely deferred to references.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is dense and table-driven with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every section delivers rules, thresholds, or routing rather than background. A one-sentence credibility preamble ('Postmark has delivered billions of transactional emails over 15+ years') and a couple of aphoristic 'Notes' lines could be trimmed, placing it just below the leanest anchor.	4 / 5
Actionability	Guidance is concrete and executable despite being instruction-only: named test endpoints ('POSTMARK_API_TEST', 'test@blackhole.postmarkapp.com', 'hardbounce@bounce-testing.postmarkapp.com'), numeric thresholds ('keep below 2%', 'keep below 0.04%'), and unambiguous rules ('Remove hard bounces immediately and permanently'). Minor gaps — e.g., no inline example of a DMARC record or API call — keep it below fully copy-paste-ready coverage.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	As a reference-style skill it has no multi-step procedure to sequence, and no destructive/batch operations that would trigger the validation cap. The Quick Reference table provides a clear routing index, sections are unambiguous, and hard rules are bolded ('Never test with real addresses at consumer providers'). Minor checkpoint gaps (e.g., no inline 'verify DNS records propagated' step) hold it at 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Exemplary structure: the body is a lean overview where each topic section closes with a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ('See [references/deliverability.md](references/deliverability.md) for DNS setup...'), all six referenced files exist in references/, and there is no nesting or buried content. This matches the clear-overview anchor exactly.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

70%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A well-constructed description with an explicit 'Use when' clause, specific named regulations, and a clearly defined niche. Its main weakness is the absence of concrete action verbs on the 'what' side and a few missing high-frequency trigger synonyms (SPF/DKIM/DMARC, bounces, unsubscribe).

Suggestions

Lead with 2-3 concrete capabilities in third person (e.g., 'Configures SPF/DKIM/DMARC authentication, designs transactional email patterns, and diagnoses deliverability issues') so the 'what' matches the strength of the 'when'.

Add natural trigger synonyms users actually say — 'SPF', 'DKIM', 'DMARC', 'bounces', 'unsubscribe', 'spam complaints' — to the 'Use when' clause for fuller keyword coverage.

Tighten or drop the broad tail 'or general email best practices' to reduce overlap risk with generic email-writing or copywriting skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names its domains precisely ('compliance (CAN-SPAM, GDPR, CASL)', 'transactional email design patterns', 'list management') but uses no concrete action verbs — it offers 'knowledge' and 'asking about' rather than capabilities like 'configure SPF/DKIM' or 'diagnose bounces'. This matches the anchor for naming the domain with limited concrete actions, falling short of the verb-led action lists at the next level.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'when' is explicit and trigger-rich ('Use when asking about email deliverability, compliance (CAN-SPAM, GDPR, CASL)...'), but the 'what' is abstract — 'provider-agnostic knowledge with Postmark-specific guidance' describes the material rather than concrete actions, so it does not fully reach the both-halves-concrete anchor.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Strong natural phrases users would say ('email deliverability', 'email best practices', 'transactional email') plus named regulations. It misses common synonyms such as 'SPF/DKIM/DMARC', 'bounce', 'unsubscribe', and 'spam', which keeps it below comprehensive synonym coverage but clearly above partial keyword coverage.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Named regulations, 'transactional email', and 'Postmark' carve a clear, distinct niche with specific triggers. The trailing 'general email best practices' clause leaves minor overlap risk with email-composition or copywriting skills, preventing the minimal-conflict top score.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: ActiveCampaign/postmark-skills
Path: postmark-email-best-practices/SKILL.md
Commit: 269553e

Reviewed: 6 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.