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.

60

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/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

75%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, operationally dense reference with clear sequenced workflows and explicit safety checkpoints for destructive operations, held back only by minor recap duplication and the absence of example tool-call payloads.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense with operational detail Claude would not already know (Rube tool slugs, GitHub API gotchas, pagination limits) and avoids explaining basic concepts, though the 'Known Pitfalls' recap and Quick Reference table duplicate content already present in the per-workflow sections.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete named tools, parameter lists, and Required/Optional/Alternative sequencing give mostly executable guidance; it stops short of example tool-call payloads, but as an instruction-only MCP skill the guidance is actionable.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Each workflow has a numbered tool sequence with role tags and explicit safety checkpoints ('verify mergeable status immediately before merging', 'Require explicit user confirmation for destructive operations', CI check before merge), so it is not subject to the destructive/batch cap; minor recovery-loop detail is implied rather than spelled out.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so all content is inline, but it is well-organized into six workflow sections, Common Patterns, Known Pitfalls, and a Quick Reference table with clear headers for navigation; only minor organization gaps remain for a >50-line skill.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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.

The description is specific and distinct, with strong keyword coverage and concrete actions, but it omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, which caps its completeness at 3.

Suggestions

Append a 'Use when...' clause naming concrete user triggers (e.g., 'Use when the user asks to create or merge PRs, manage branches, trigger CI, or audit repo permissions').

Add natural-verb synonyms users actually say ('merge pull requests', 'deploy', 'review code changes') to broaden trigger term coverage.

Replace generic verbs 'Manage'/'handle' with at least one more specific action to push specificity toward 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (repositories, issues, pull requests, branches, CI/CD, permissions) and lists several concrete actions ('Manage code workflows, review PRs, search code, and handle deployments'), though 'manage'/'handle' are slightly generic, keeping it just below comprehensive.

4 / 5

Completeness

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

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage with terms users would say ('GitHub repositories, issues, pull requests, branches, CI/CD'), but a few common natural variations (merge, deploy, OAuth) are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'via Rube MCP (Composio)' qualifier carves a clear niche, with only minor overlap risk against a generic GitHub skill.

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.

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.