CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

gitlab-automation

Automate GitLab project management, issues, merge requests, pipelines, branches, and user operations via Rube MCP (Composio). Always search tools first for current schemas.

Quality

72%

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 ./skills/gitlab-automation/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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, genuinely actionable body whose main weaknesses are duplication and monolithic inline reference material. The five workflows with prerequisites and pitfalls are strong; the skill would score higher by moving per-tool parameter details into reference files and cutting content that duplicates the live RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS schemas it tells the agent to consult first.

Suggestions

Move the per-tool 'Key parameters' lists into a references/ file (e.g., references/tool-params.md) and keep SKILL.md focused on workflow sequences, pitfalls, and the setup steps, since RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS already returns current schemas.

Trim or drop the 'Quick Reference' table, which duplicates the tool slugs already listed in each workflow's tool sequence, and replace the empty 'When to Use' section ('applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview') with real trigger guidance or remove it.

Add post-mutation validation steps (e.g., re-fetch the issue or MR after update to confirm the change took effect) to complete the feedback loops that the pre-action checkpoints only half-provide.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and free of concept-explanation fluff (it never explains what GitLab is), but it is noticeably over-long: ~250 lines where the per-tool 'Key parameters' lists largely duplicate what RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS returns live, and the 'Quick Reference' table re-lists the same tool slugs already given in each workflow section. Mostly efficient but could be significantly tightened — matches anchor 3, not 4, because the duplication is substantial rather than minor.

3 / 5

Actionability

Highly concrete for an MCP-tool skill: exact tool slugs, ordered sequences with [Prerequisite]/[Required]/[Optional] roles, precise parameter values and enums ('state_event: "close" or "reopen"', 'assignee_ids: [0] to unassign all', 'per_page 1-100, default 20'). Falls short of anchor 5 only because there are no concrete example tool-call payloads or sample request/response pairs showing the exact arguments in practice.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Each of the five workflows has a clear numbered tool sequence with explicit role labels, and there are real validation checkpoints: 'Confirm connection status shows ACTIVE before running any workflows', 'verify with GITLAB_GET_PROJECT first', and 'verify branch existence via GITLAB_GET_REPOSITORY_BRANCHES first'. Not anchor 5 because feedback loops after mutations are missing — there is no post-action verification (e.g., re-check the issue state after update) and no explicit error-recovery path beyond the pitfalls lists.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent), and the entire per-tool parameter reference is inlined in SKILL.md. Section headers and the Quick Reference table provide reasonable structure, but content that clearly belongs in separate reference files (e.g., per-domain parameter/pitfall references) is all inline, matching anchor 3 rather than 4.

3 / 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 strong, specific description with good natural keywords and excellent distinctiveness, undermined by a missing explicit 'when to use' trigger clause. The instruction-style second sentence ('Always search tools first for current schemas') consumes space that should carry trigger guidance.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user wants to create or update GitLab issues, review merge requests, check CI/CD pipeline status, or manage projects, branches, and members.'

Include common synonyms and variations users say: 'CI/CD', 'MRs', 'code review', 'repo', 'GitLab API'.

Replace the 'Always search tools first for current schemas' instruction (which belongs in the body, not the description) with action verbs like 'create', 'update', and 'monitor' to sharpen the capability list.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Enumerates several concrete capability areas — 'project management, issues, merge requests, pipelines, branches, and user operations' — going beyond naming the domain. It falls short of anchor 5 because these are noun-phrase domains rather than distinct concrete actions (no 'create', 'update', 'monitor' verbs distinguishing individual operations), leaving minor gaps in coverage.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (automating GitLab operations via Rube MCP/Composio), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — the second sentence 'Always search tools first for current schemas' is an instruction, not a usage trigger. Per the judging guideline, a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains strong natural keywords users would actually say: 'GitLab', 'issues', 'merge requests', 'pipelines', 'branches'. Not anchor 5 because common variations are missing — 'CI/CD', 'MRs', 'code review', 'repos', and file/format terms are absent; not anchor 3 because coverage of the core natural terms is genuinely good.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with distinct triggers: 'GitLab' plus the named toolchain 'Rube MCP (Composio)' sharply distinguishes it from generic git/GitHub or project-management skills. Anchor 5 fits — minimal conflict risk, since a user needing this skill would naturally be talking about GitLab.

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

skills/gitlab-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.