CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

github-automation

Automate GitHub repositories, issues, pull requests, branches, CI/CD, and permissions via Rube MCP (Composio). Manage code workflows, review PRs, search code, and handle deployments programmatically.

59

Quality

69%

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/skills/github-automation/SKILL.md

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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.

The body is a well-structured, actionable reference with clear sequenced workflows and real validation guards for destructive operations, undermined slightly by duplicated pitfalls and a filler closing section that hurt conciseness.

Suggestions

Remove the standalone 'Known Pitfalls' section (or replace it with a one-line pointer) since each pitfall already appears under its workflow — this trims the main token waste.

Delete or rewrite the vague 'When to Use' line at the end; it adds no information beyond the per-workflow 'When to use' clauses.

Consider moving the Quick Reference table and full per-workflow tool sequences into a reference file, leaving SKILL.md a leaner overview that points to the detail.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient with dense tool sequences and parameter tables, but the 'Known Pitfalls' section duplicates the per-workflow 'Pitfalls' blocks and the closing 'When to Use' line ('applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview') is filler that could be trimmed.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout — specific tool slugs, key parameters, and HTTP error codes (422, 409, 404) — though it stops short of full example invocations with filled arguments, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Each workflow is a clearly numbered tool sequence with [Required]/[Optional]/[Alternative] tags and a Safety section enforcing validation (verify mergeable before merge, check CI, require explicit confirmation for destructive ops); missing only full error-recovery feedback loops to reach 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into Prerequisites, Setup, six Core Workflows, Common Patterns, and a Quick Reference table with no nested references and no bundle files present; the duplicated pitfalls and filler 'When to Use' are minor organization gaps rather than a clean overview-plus-references split.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

71%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.

The description is specific and action-rich with good natural trigger terms and a clear niche, but it lacks any explicit 'Use when' trigger guidance, which caps completeness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user wants to automate GitHub tasks programmatically — managing repos, issues, PRs, branches, CI/CD, or permissions.'

Include a few more natural synonyms users say ('commits', 'code review', 'GitHub Actions') to broaden trigger coverage.

Tighten the niche framing (e.g. emphasize 'via Composio/Rube MCP tool calls') to reduce overlap with other GitHub skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions across the domain — 'Automate GitHub repositories, issues, pull requests, branches, CI/CD, and permissions' plus 'Manage code workflows, review PRs, search code, and handle deployments' — giving comprehensive coverage rather than a few actions.

5 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear and detailed, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage ('issues', 'pull requests', 'PRs', 'branches', 'CI/CD', 'deployments'), but a few common variations ('commits', 'code review', 'GitHub Actions') and synonym breadth are missing relative to the comprehensive anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'via Rube MCP (Composio)' qualifier gives it a distinct niche, but the broad 'GitHub automation' framing leaves minor overlap risk with other GitHub-oriented skills.

4 / 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.

Validation15 / 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
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.