make-automation
Automate Make (Integromat) tasks via Rube MCP (Composio): operations, enums, language and timezone lookups. Always search tools first for current schemas.
Overall
score
61%
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
57%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 identifies a specific platform (Make/Integromat) and tooling (Rube MCP/Composio), providing reasonable distinctiveness. However, it lacks explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...'), uses somewhat technical jargon that users may not naturally say, and the listed capabilities are not fully concrete actions.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms like 'Make automation', 'Integromat workflow', 'scenario', or 'integration'.
Replace technical terms like 'enums' and 'operations' with user-friendly descriptions such as 'create scenarios', 'manage connections', or 'configure triggers and actions'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (Make/Integromat) and mentions some actions ('operations, enums, language and timezone lookups'), but these are somewhat vague and not fully concrete actions a user would understand without context. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (automate Make tasks, operations, lookups) but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause. The guidance to 'search tools first' is operational advice, not trigger guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes 'Make', 'Integromat', and 'Rube MCP (Composio)' as relevant keywords, but missing common user terms like 'automation', 'workflow', 'scenarios', 'integrations', or 'Zapier alternative'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clearly targets Make/Integromat specifically via Rube MCP (Composio), which is a distinct niche unlikely to conflict with other automation or integration skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a reasonable overview of Make automation via Rube MCP with clear tool identification and workflow sequences. However, it lacks concrete executable examples, over-explains some concepts Claude already knows, and could benefit from explicit validation steps in workflows. The content would be stronger with actual API call examples showing parameters and expected responses.
Suggestions
Add concrete executable examples showing actual tool calls with specific parameters and expected response structures, rather than deferring to 'check schema'
Add explicit validation/error handling steps to core workflows, especially for MAKE_GET_OPERATIONS which may return errors or empty results
Trim the 'Known Pitfalls' section by removing explanations of basic concepts (rate limits, authentication) and focusing only on Make-specific gotchas
Consider moving the detailed 'Alternative Approaches' and 'Composing Equivalent Workflows' sections to a separate ADVANCED.md file to keep the main skill focused
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill contains some unnecessary verbosity, particularly in the 'Known Pitfalls' section which explains concepts Claude would understand (rate limits, authentication basics). The tables and quick reference are efficient, but sections like 'Caching Strategy for Enums' over-explain simple concepts. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides tool names and general sequences but lacks executable code examples. The 'Common Patterns' section uses pseudocode-style numbered lists rather than actual API calls with parameters. Key parameters sections often defer to 'check schema' rather than providing concrete examples. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Workflows are listed with clear sequences and tool names, but validation checkpoints are weak. The setup section has good verification steps, but core workflows lack explicit validation/error handling steps. No feedback loops for failed operations beyond 'investigate.' | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is reasonably organized with clear sections and a quick reference table. However, it's somewhat monolithic with all content inline rather than splitting detailed pitfalls or alternative approaches into separate reference files. The external link to Composio docs is good but internal structure could be improved. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Validation
91%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 | |
- 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.