CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

basecamp-automation

Automate Basecamp project management, to-dos, messages, people, and to-do list organization via Rube MCP (Composio). Always search tools first for current schemas.

Quality

71%

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 ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/basecamp-automation/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is basecamp-automation in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

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.

A well-structured, highly actionable MCP orchestration guide with exact tool names, parameters, and enumerated values. Its main weaknesses are duplicated pitfall content that inflates token cost and missing validation/confirmation checkpoints around destructive operations (access revocation, full-body message updates).

Suggestions

Add explicit validation before destructive/batch calls, e.g. "Before calling PUT_PROJECTS_PEOPLE_USERS, list project people and confirm the revoke IDs with the user" and "After updating a message, GET the message to confirm the body was replaced correctly".

De-duplicate the Known Pitfalls section against the per-workflow Pitfalls blocks, or keep only pitfalls not already stated inline.

Show one concrete example tool call (e.g., a RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS query for 'basecamp create to-do' with its result shape) to make guidance copy-paste ready.

Delete the empty "When to Use" section, which adds a line of context cost with zero information.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence (no concept explanations), but it could be tightened: the "Known Pitfalls" section largely repeats the per-workflow "Pitfalls" content (integer IDs, bucket_id=project_id, HTML-not-Markdown, status="draft" all appear twice), and the closing "When to Use" section is pure filler ("This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview."). This matches anchor 3's "mostly efficient but could be tightened" rather than anchor 4's minor-trimming case.

3 / 5

Actionability

Highly concrete for an instruction-only skill: exact tool slugs (BASECAMP_POST_BUCKETS_TODOLISTS_TODOS), parameter names and types (due_on in YYYY-MM-DD, assignee_ids as integer array), enumerated values (the 11 group colors), and an HTML content example. It stops short of anchor 5 because no example tool-call payload or request/response snippet is shown, leaving minor gaps in copy-paste readiness.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Sequences are well-ordered with per-step annotations (Prerequisite/Required/Optional) and one good checkpoint ("Confirm connection status shows ACTIVE before running any workflows"). However, destructive and batch operations lack validation: PUT_PROJECTS_PEOPLE_USERS can revoke access in bulk and message updates replace the entire body, yet there is no verify-before-applying or read-back-confirmation step. Per the rubric, missing validation on destructive/batch operations caps workflow clarity at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A single well-organized SKILL.md with no bundle files: clear section hierarchy (Setup, Core Workflows, Common Patterns, Known Pitfalls, Quick Reference) and a scannable quick-reference table. This matches anchor 4's "good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps" — the 20-row Quick Reference table and per-tool parameter detail could live in a references file to slim the overview, which is what keeps it from anchor 5's appropriately-split structure.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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.

A solid, specific description with good natural keywords and a clear niche, but it lacks any "Use when..." trigger clause, which caps its completeness and weakens its ability to fire reliably. Adding an explicit trigger sentence and a few synonyms (e.g., task, message board) would lift it to the top band.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user mentions Basecamp, to-do lists or tasks, message boards, or project access management."

Include common synonyms users say, such as "task" and "message board", alongside the current keywords.

Replace the broad "project management" with one or two concrete actions (e.g., "list projects, manage project access") to sharpen specificity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names several specific capability areas: "project management, to-dos, messages, people, and to-do list organization", each a concrete action domain. It falls short of anchor 5 because some terms like "project management" are broad categories rather than the fully enumerated concrete actions (create, update, list) of the top example.

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clearly stated ("Automate Basecamp project management, to-dos, messages, people...") but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance; "Always search tools first for current schemas" is an instruction, not a trigger. Per the rubric guideline, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3, and it is not below 3 because the what is explicit.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural keywords users would say: "Basecamp", "to-dos", "messages", "people", "project management". It misses common synonyms a user might use, e.g. "task" (for to-do), "message board", or "assign", keeping it at anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It has a clear niche: Basecamp automation specifically via "Rube MCP (Composio)", with named objects (to-dos, messages, people). Another user mentioning Basecamp would unambiguously match this skill, and no other skill domain overlaps — matching anchor 5's clear-niche example.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

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

administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

Path

plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/basecamp-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.