CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

benchmark-email-automation

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

52

Quality

65%

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/benchmark-email-automation/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

61%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 content is well-structured, avoids over-explanation, and gives actionable tool-call patterns, but it has structural redundancy around search-first guidance and lacks an explicit post-execution validation/retry loop for batch operations. Tightening the duplicated sections and adding a validate-result step would raise the score.

Suggestions

Consolidate the duplicated search-first guidance (Tool Discovery section vs. Step 1 vs. Pitfalls) into a single canonical statement to remove redundancy.

Add an explicit validate-and-retry loop after RUBE_MULTI_EXECUTE_TOOL (e.g., check the returned status/errors, re-run RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS if a schema mismatch occurs, then retry) to satisfy the batch-operation feedback-loop expectation.

Make the pagination handling a concrete checkpoint step ("if a pagination token is present, continue fetching until exhausted") rather than only a bullet in Known Pitfalls.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and does not explain concepts Claude already knows, but the "search tools first" pattern and RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS block are restated across Prerequisites, Tool Discovery, Step 1, and Known Pitfalls, which could be consolidated.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete tool invocation blocks (RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS, RUBE_MANAGE_CONNECTIONS, RUBE_MULTI_EXECUTE_TOOL) show exact parameter shapes; placeholders for runtime values are justified since slugs/args come from search results.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 3-step sequence with a connection-ACTIVE checkpoint exists, but batch execution (RUBE_MULTI_EXECUTE_TOOL, bulk ops) lacks an explicit validate-result feedback loop, capping workflow clarity at 3 per the batch-operations rule.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Self-contained with well-organized section headers and no nested references (no bundle files exist); the redundant Tool Discovery / Step 1 sections are a minor organization gap keeping it from 5.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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 third-person and identifies a specific, distinct niche, but it lacks an explicit "Use when" trigger clause and relies on generic action language with limited trigger-term variation. Adding trigger phrases and concrete operations would lift the middle dimensions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when..." clause naming natural triggers (e.g., "Use when the user asks to send or schedule Benchmark Email campaigns, manage contacts, or automate email marketing").

Replace the generic "Automate Benchmark Email tasks" with 2-3 concrete operations (e.g., "send campaigns, manage subscribers, schedule emails") to improve specificity.

Include common synonyms/file types users would say (newsletters, email marketing, campaigns) to broaden trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Automate Benchmark Email tasks" names the domain and a couple of actions (automate, search tools), but the actions are generic and not a comprehensive list of email operations.

3 / 5

Completeness

It gives a clear "what" (automate Benchmark Email tasks) but has no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The natural product-name term "Benchmark Email" is present, but common synonyms a user might say (email marketing, newsletters, campaigns) are missing.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Naming a specific product (Benchmark Email) plus a specific MCP (Rube) gives a clear niche with only minor overlap risk against generic email-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.

Validation — 15 / 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

Path

composio-skills/benchmark-email-automation/SKILL.md

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.