Automate Postmark email delivery tasks via Rube MCP (Composio): send templated emails, manage templates, monitor delivery stats and bounces. Always search tools first for current schemas.
75
65%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
95%
1.63xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.trae/skills/postmark-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 strong in specificity and distinctiveness, clearly identifying Postmark-specific email delivery tasks and the integration mechanism. Its main weaknesses are the lack of an explicit 'Use when...' clause and somewhat limited trigger term coverage for natural user language. Adding explicit trigger guidance and more natural keyword variations would elevate this description.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about sending emails via Postmark, checking email delivery status, managing email templates, or handling bounces.'
Include more natural trigger term variations such as 'transactional email', 'send email', 'email notifications', 'email API', or 'Postmark API' to improve matching against diverse user requests.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'send templated emails', 'manage templates', 'monitor delivery stats and bounces', and 'search tools first for current schemas'. These are clear, actionable capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers 'what does this do' with specific capabilities, but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance. The when is only implied by the domain context. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant keywords like 'Postmark', 'email delivery', 'templated emails', 'templates', 'bounces', and 'delivery stats'. However, it misses common user variations like 'transactional email', 'email API', 'send email', or 'email notifications'. The mention of 'Rube MCP (Composio)' is technical jargon unlikely to appear in user requests. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive due to the specific mention of 'Postmark' as the email service, 'Rube MCP (Composio)' as the integration layer, and focused capabilities around templated emails and delivery monitoring. Unlikely to conflict with generic email or other email provider skills. | 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 well-structured skill with clear workflow sequences and good validation checkpoints, particularly strong in its step labeling and prerequisite gating. However, it suffers from being overly long for a single file without progressive disclosure to external references, contains some redundant information across sections, and lacks concrete executable examples of actual MCP tool invocations with sample payloads.
Suggestions
Add at least one concrete, copy-paste-ready example of an actual MCP tool call with a full payload (e.g., a complete POSTMARK_SEND_BATCH_WITH_TEMPLATES invocation with sample Messages array and TemplateModel).
Consolidate repeated pitfalls (batch limit, sender verification, template ID types) into the 'Known Pitfalls' section only, and remove duplicates from individual workflow sections to reduce token usage.
Consider splitting detailed workflow sections into a separate WORKFLOWS.md file, keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview with the setup, quick reference table, and links to the detailed file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably well-structured but includes some redundancy—pitfalls are repeated across sections (e.g., batch limit of 500, sender verification mentioned multiple times), and some explanations like bounce type descriptions are things Claude already knows. The quick reference table at the end duplicates information already covered in the workflows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Tool sequences are clearly named and ordered, and key parameters are listed, but there are no executable code examples or concrete MCP call examples with actual payloads. The 'Template Variable Resolution' pattern uses pseudocode-style numbered steps rather than showing an actual tool invocation with parameters. Users would benefit from a concrete example of a RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS call or a batch send payload. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Multi-step workflows are clearly sequenced with labeled steps (Prerequisite, Optional, Required), include validation checkpoints (e.g., validate template before sending, confirm connection is ACTIVE before running workflows), and provide error recovery guidance (e.g., if connection is not ACTIVE, follow auth link). The setup flow has an explicit gate before proceeding. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-organized with clear section headers and a quick reference table, but it's a long monolithic document (~180 lines of content) with no references to external files for detailed information. The five workflow sections plus common patterns, known pitfalls, and quick reference could benefit from splitting detailed workflow guides into separate files with the SKILL.md serving as an overview. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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 | |
3069d33
Table of Contents
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.