Content
75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a concise, well-structured, single-file skill with concrete tool-call examples, a clear setup-and-execute workflow, and explicit connection-validation checkpoints. Its main limitations are justified-but-placeholder execute arguments, minor redundancy in the discovery section, and no explicit post-execution retry loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is well-sectioned and assumes Claude's competence without explaining what MCP/Composio are, with only minor trim opportunities such as the restated "This returns available tool slugs..." line and the discovery step being shown twice (Tool Discovery and Step 1). It is not a 5 because those small redundancies remain. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete tool calls with example arguments are given for RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS, RUBE_MANAGE_CONNECTIONS, and RUBE_MULTI_EXECUTE_TOOL, plus a Quick Reference table mapping operations to commands. Placeholders like TOOL_SLUG_FROM_SEARCH are justified by the explicit "schemas change, search first" guidance, so this is mostly executable rather than pseudocode; it is not a 5 because the actual execute arguments depend on dynamic search results and are not copy-paste ready for common cases. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Setup and Core Workflow sections give a clear numbered sequence with validation checkpoints (confirm ACTIVE before running, verify connection before executing) and an auth-link recovery hint. It is not a 5 because there is no explicit post-execution validate/fix/retry feedback loop (e.g. for pagination or failed tool calls), leaving a minor validation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the skill is a single self-contained file organized into clear headed sections (Prerequisites, Setup, Tool Discovery, Core Workflow, Pitfalls, Quick Reference), with one clearly-signaled external doc pointer rather than nested references. It is not a 5 because there are no one-level-deep file references to split content into, so the top anchor's "content appropriately split across files" criterion is not demonstrated. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |