coda-automation

Automate Coda tasks via Rube MCP (Composio): manage docs, pages, tables, rows, formulas, permissions, and publishing. Always search tools first for current schemas.

1.28x

Quality

65%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

82%

1.28x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.trae/skills/coda-automation/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

67%

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 reasonably strong in specificity and distinctiveness, clearly identifying Coda as the target platform and listing concrete resource types it manages. However, it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, and some of the trigger terms are either too technical (Rube MCP, Composio) or too generic (docs, tables, rows) to reliably match natural user language.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to create, edit, or manage Coda documents, tables, or automations.'

Include more natural user-facing trigger terms such as 'Coda doc', 'Coda spreadsheet', 'Coda automation', or 'Coda API' to improve matching on real user queries.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete actions: manage docs, pages, tables, rows, formulas, permissions, and publishing. Also specifies the integration method (Rube MCP via Composio) and includes a procedural instruction (search tools first for current schemas).	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers 'what does this do' (automate Coda tasks via Rube MCP), but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause. The 'when' is only implied by the mention of Coda tasks. Per rubric guidelines, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant keywords like 'Coda', 'docs', 'pages', 'tables', 'rows', 'formulas', 'permissions', and 'publishing', but these are somewhat generic terms that could apply to other tools. Missing natural user phrases like 'spreadsheet', 'Coda doc', or file-type triggers. 'Rube MCP' and 'Composio' are technical jargon unlikely to appear in user requests.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The combination of 'Coda' as the specific platform and 'Rube MCP (Composio)' as the integration method creates a very clear niche. This is unlikely to conflict with other skills since it targets a specific product and toolchain.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Implementation

62%

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

This is a comprehensive Coda automation skill with well-structured workflows and clear tool sequencing. Its main weaknesses are verbosity (duplicated information between workflows and quick reference, some obvious pitfalls) and lack of concrete executable examples showing actual MCP call payloads. The workflow clarity is strong with good prerequisite labeling and validation steps.

Suggestions

Add at least one concrete, executable MCP call example with actual JSON payload (e.g., a complete CODA_UPSERT_ROWS call with row data structure) instead of pseudocode numbered lists.

Remove the quick reference table or move it to a separate REFERENCE.md file, since it largely duplicates information already in the workflow sections.

Trim obvious pitfalls that Claude can infer (e.g., 'Large documents may take significant time to export', 'Publishing makes the document accessible to anyone with the link') to reduce token usage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is fairly well-organized but is quite lengthy (~200 lines). Some sections contain information Claude could infer (e.g., explaining what formulas are, that publishing makes docs accessible). The pitfalls sections add value but some entries are obvious (e.g., 'Large documents may take significant time to export'). The quick reference table at the end duplicates information already covered in the workflows.	2 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides clear tool names, parameter lists, and sequenced steps, which is good. However, there are no executable code examples — the 'Common Patterns' section uses pseudocode-style numbered lists rather than actual MCP call examples with concrete payloads. Key details like exact JSON structures for row objects or principal objects are missing.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Workflows are clearly sequenced with numbered steps, labeled as Required/Optional/Alternative/Prerequisite. The export workflow includes polling with interval guidance. The upsert pattern includes a prerequisite step to list columns first. The setup section has explicit validation (confirm ACTIVE status before proceeding). Feedback loops are present where needed (export polling, connection verification).	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is well-structured with clear sections and headers, but it's all in one monolithic file. The quick reference table, detailed pitfalls, and common patterns could be split into separate reference files. The only external reference is the Composio toolkit docs link. For a skill this long (~200 lines), better progressive disclosure would help.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: Lingjie-chen/MT5
Commit: 3069d33

Reviewed: 26 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.