miro-automation
Automate Miro tasks via Rube MCP (Composio): boards, items, sticky notes, frames, sharing, connectors. Always search tools first for current schemas.
71
58%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
94%
2.41xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.trae/skills/miro-automation/SKILL.mdQuality
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 concise and lists specific Miro entities, making it clear what the skill does. However, it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which caps completeness, and the trigger terms could be broader to capture more natural user language. The technical reference to 'Rube MCP (Composio)' adds distinctiveness but doesn't help with user-facing discoverability.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to create, edit, or manage Miro boards, sticky notes, frames, or connectors.'
Include additional natural trigger terms users might say, such as 'whiteboard', 'collaboration board', 'visual collaboration', or 'Miro diagram'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions/objects: boards, items, sticky notes, frames, sharing, connectors. Also includes a procedural instruction ('Always search tools first for current schemas'). | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is well covered (automate Miro tasks with specific entities listed), but there is no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance. The 'when' is only implied by the mention of Miro-related nouns. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural terms like 'Miro', 'boards', 'sticky notes', 'frames', 'sharing', 'connectors' which users might say. However, it misses common variations like 'whiteboard', 'collaboration board', 'diagram', and the mention of 'Rube MCP (Composio)' is technical jargon unlikely to be used by end users. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is clearly scoped to Miro via a specific MCP integration (Rube/Composio), making it highly distinctive and unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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 solid structural organization with clear workflow sequences, tool names, and parameter documentation for Miro automation. Its main weaknesses are redundancy across sections (pitfalls repeated in workflows and in a dedicated section), lack of executable examples with actual tool call payloads, and missing validation/verification steps after operations. The content would benefit from being more concise with detailed references split into separate files.
Suggestions
Add at least one fully executable tool call example with actual JSON parameters (e.g., a complete MIRO_CREATE_STICKY_NOTE_ITEM invocation) to improve actionability.
Consolidate pitfalls into the dedicated 'Known Pitfalls' section and remove duplicates from individual workflow sections to reduce redundancy.
Add explicit verification steps after key operations (e.g., 'After creating items, call MIRO_GET_BOARD_ITEMS to confirm they were created successfully') to improve workflow clarity.
Move detailed parameter lists and the quick reference table to a separate REFERENCE.md file, keeping SKILL.md as a leaner overview with links.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably well-structured but includes some redundancy—pitfalls are repeated across sections (e.g., 'board_id is required' appears multiple times), and the 'Known Pitfalls' section largely restates what was already covered in each workflow's pitfalls. The coordinate system explanation and some parameter listings could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Tool names and parameter lists are concrete and specific, but there are no executable code examples or copy-paste-ready tool invocations with actual parameter JSON. The 'Common Patterns' section uses pseudocode-style numbered lists rather than showing actual tool call syntax with example payloads. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Multi-step workflows are clearly sequenced with labeled steps and prerequisite/optional annotations, which is good. However, there are no explicit validation or verification checkpoints—for example, after creating items or sharing boards, there's no step to confirm success or handle errors. The setup section does include a verification step for connection status, which is positive. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-organized with clear sections and a quick reference table, but it's quite long (~180 lines of substantive content) with no references to external files for detailed information. The pitfalls, parameter details, and workflow specifics could be split into separate reference files, with the SKILL.md serving as a leaner overview. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%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
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.