CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

baserow-automation

Automate Baserow tasks via Rube MCP (Composio). Always search tools first for current schemas.

54

Quality

61%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./composio-skills/baserow-automation/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

68%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.

The body is efficient and actionable with well-structured sections, but the workflow lacks a post-execution verification and error-recovery loop, which the rubric caps at 3 for database/batch operations. Adding result validation after RUBE_MULTI_EXECUTE_TOOL would close the main gap.

Suggestions

Add an explicit post-execution verification step: after RUBE_MULTI_EXECUTE_TOOL, check the response for success/errors, handle pagination tokens, and retry or report failures before proceeding.

Consolidate the Tool Discovery section with Step 1: Discover Available Tools to remove the near-duplicate RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS block and tighten conciseness.

Include one concrete Baserow-specific end-to-end example (e.g., search for a row-creation tool, then execute it with real argument shapes) to push actionability from 4 to 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and fluff-free with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; the only trims would be the 'search tools first' point reinforced across four sections and the near-duplication of Tool Discovery with Step 1.

4 / 5

Actionability

It provides concrete MCP tool-call blocks with parameter structures for RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS, RUBE_MANAGE_CONNECTIONS, and RUBE_MULTI_EXECUTE_TOOL; placeholders are unavoidable since real values come from search results, and no Baserow-specific end-to-end example is shown.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

There is a clear 3-step sequence (discover, check connection, execute) with a pre-execution ACTIVE-status checkpoint, but no post-execution result verification or error-recovery loop; for a database/batch skill this missing feedback loop caps workflow clarity at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is organized into clear, well-labeled sections (Prerequisites, Setup, Tool Discovery, Core Workflow, Pitfalls, Quick Reference) with no nested references and a useful summary table, though it is slightly over the 50-line simple-skill threshold and entirely self-contained.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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.

The description is specific to a named product and mechanism but lacks an explicit trigger clause and natural-term synonyms, leaving it solidly mid-range across most dimensions. Adding a 'Use when...' clause with user-facing synonyms would raise completeness and trigger coverage.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural triggers such as 'when the user mentions Baserow, no-code databases, rows, or tables' to lift completeness from 3 to 4-5.

Broaden trigger terms beyond the product name to include synonyms users actually say ('database', 'no-code', 'rows', 'tables').

Enumerate 1-2 concrete Baserow operations (e.g., 'create and update rows, manage tables') to push specificity above 3.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Baserow tasks') and a concrete action ('search tools first for current schemas'), but does not enumerate specific Baserow operations such as rows, tables, or databases, so it stops at 1-2 concrete actions rather than comprehensive coverage.

3 / 5

Completeness

It clearly states the 'what' (automate Baserow via Rube MCP) but provides no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes the product name 'Baserow' a user would naturally say, but misses common synonyms and variations a user might also use such as 'database', 'no-code database', 'rows', or 'tables'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It is tied to a specific named product (Baserow) and a specific MCP mechanism (Rube/Composio), giving it a clear niche with only minor overlap risk against other Composio-based automation skills.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
ComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skills
Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.