CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

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.

Quality

70%

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/coda-automation/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is coda-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, largely actionable MCP automation guide with concrete tool sequences and parameters. Its main weaknesses are duplicated pitfall content (hurting conciseness), and missing post-write validation for batch/destructive operations like row upserts and permission changes, which caps workflow clarity at 3.

Suggestions

Add validation checkpoints after batch/destructive operations: after CODA_UPSERT_ROWS, re-fetch the affected rows to confirm; after CODA_ADD_PERMISSION or CODA_PUBLISH_DOC, re-check sharing metadata before reporting success.

Deduplicate content: fold the 'Known Pitfalls' ID-format, data-type, and rate-limit notes into the per-workflow Pitfalls sections (or vice versa), and cut the filler 'When to Use' closing line.

Add one concrete example payload for the trickiest operation (e.g., a sample rows array with keyColumns for CODA_UPSERT_ROWS, or a principal object for CODA_ADD_PERMISSION) to close the actionability gap; optionally move the Quick Reference table to a references/ file.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient — tool sequences, parameters, and pitfalls with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — but it could be tightened: the 'Known Pitfalls' section repeats per-workflow pitfalls ('Document IDs are alphanumeric strings', 'Use RESOLVE_BROWSER_LINK', row-value type matching), the 21-row Quick Reference table duplicates the workflow tool sequences, and the closing line 'This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.' is pure filler. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' better than the minor-trimming level of 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact MCP tool slugs (CODA_UPSERT_ROWS, CODA_RESOLVE_BROWSER_LINK), key parameters (keyColumns, outputFormat, principal), step sequences, and pitfalls like 'poll status until complete' with '2-5 second intervals'. It stops short of a 5 because there are no concrete example payloads (e.g., a sample rows array or principal object for an upsert/permission call), leaving minor gaps for the trickier operations.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Each workflow has a clear numbered tool sequence and some checkpoints (confirm connection is ACTIVE, poll export status until 'complete'), but batch and destructive operations lack validation: CODA_UPSERT_ROWS (batch write) has no verify step (e.g., re-fetch rows to confirm), and permission changes and publishing have no post-action verification. Per the guideline capping workflow clarity at 3 for batch/destructive operations without validation, this cannot score 4 despite the well-sequenced steps.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure with clear section headers, per-workflow organization, and a Quick Reference table for navigation; the skill is self-contained with no bundle files, so the inlined reference table is a minor organization gap rather than a misplacement. It sits below a 5 because the 21-row tool table and ID-resolution patterns are reference-style content that could live in a separate references file, and above a 3 because nearly all content is appropriately placed for a single-file skill.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 description with clear 'what' coverage and the distinctive 'Coda' trigger term, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness. The verbs are also somewhat generic relative to the well-enumerated capability domains.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g., 'Use when the user mentions Coda, Coda docs, Coda tables, or asks to automate Coda workflows.'

Replace generic verbs ('manage', 'Automate ... tasks') with concrete actions like 'search and update rows, upsert table data, set doc permissions, publish docs'.

Add a few natural synonyms users would say ('Coda doc', 'sharing', 'Coda spreadsheet') to strengthen trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Automate Coda tasks via Rube MCP (Composio): manage docs, pages, tables, rows, formulas, permissions, and publishing" lists several specific capability areas (7 named domains) with a clear scope. It sits below a 5 because the verbs remain generic ('Automate', 'manage') rather than naming concrete actions like 'upsert rows' or 'publish docs', and above a 3 because coverage of the domain is comprehensive rather than just 1-2 actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (automate Coda doc/page/table/row/formula/permission/publishing operations), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — "Always search tools first for current schemas" is a behavioral instruction, not a usage trigger. Per the guideline, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3 even though the 'what' is well stated.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like "Coda", "docs", "pages", "tables", "rows", "formulas", "permissions", and "publishing" give good keyword coverage a user would plausibly say (e.g., 'update my Coda table'). A few natural variations are missing ('Coda doc', 'Coda spreadsheet', 'sharing'), keeping it below the comprehensive synonym/extension coverage of a 5, but it is well above the generic-keyword level of a 3.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Coda" is a distinct product name and "Rube MCP (Composio)" names the specific integration stack, giving a clear niche with minimal conflict risk. Minor overlap remains with other doc/data automation skills (Notion, Google Sheets, Airtable) for generic queries like 'update the table', keeping it just below a 5.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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/coda-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.