CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

intercom-automation

Automate Intercom tasks via Rube MCP (Composio): conversations, contacts, companies, segments, admins. Always search tools first for current schemas.

52

Quality

58%

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/intercom-automation/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a comprehensive Intercom automation skill that covers the major workflows well with concrete tool names, parameters, and pitfalls. Its main weaknesses are redundancy (admin ID requirements repeated 4+ times, pitfalls duplicated across sections and the Known Pitfalls section) and the monolithic structure that could benefit from splitting into reference files. The content is actionable but could be more token-efficient.

Suggestions

Consolidate repeated pitfalls (especially admin ID requirements and HTML content notes) into the Known Pitfalls section only, and reference it from workflows instead of duplicating.

Move the Quick Reference table and Common Patterns section into separate referenced files (e.g., REFERENCE.md, PATTERNS.md) to improve progressive disclosure and reduce the main file's token footprint.

Add explicit verification steps to workflows (e.g., 'Verify conversation was created by checking the returned ID' or 'Confirm assignment by re-fetching conversation state').

Remove explanations Claude already knows (e.g., what HTML is, what pagination means conceptually) and keep only the Intercom-specific details.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is quite long (~200 lines) with some redundancy—pitfalls are repeated across sections (e.g., admin ID requirement appears in workflows 1, 2, 4, and the Known Pitfalls section). The quick reference table duplicates information already covered in the workflows. Some explanations like HTML content handling and what contact types mean are things Claude already knows. However, the structured format and parameter listings do add value.

3 / 5

Actionability

The skill provides concrete tool names, specific parameter names and formats, and executable JSON examples for search query filters. However, since these are MCP tool calls rather than code, the actionability is good but relies on the instruction to 'always call RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS first to get current tool schemas,' which somewhat undermines the specificity of the documented parameters. The tool sequences and key parameters are concrete enough to follow.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Workflows are clearly sequenced with labeled steps, prerequisites marked, and optional steps identified. The setup section has a clear 4-step verification flow. However, there are no explicit validation/verification checkpoints within the core workflows (e.g., no 'verify the conversation was created successfully' step), and the idempotency concern is flagged as a pitfall but no concrete feedback loop is provided for handling it. Since these aren't destructive/batch operations per se, the cap at 3 doesn't apply, but the missing verification steps prevent a 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

All content is in a single monolithic file with no references to supporting files. At ~200 lines with detailed parameter lists, pitfalls sections, and a full quick reference table, this content would benefit from splitting—e.g., the quick reference table and common patterns could be in separate files. The internal structure with headers is decent, but the lack of any file-level decomposition for this amount of content limits the score.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 identifies the platform (Intercom) and integration mechanism (Rube MCP/Composio) clearly, providing reasonable distinctiveness. However, it lacks concrete action verbs (e.g., 'create contacts', 'reply to conversations', 'list segments') and has no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, limiting both specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger phrases like 'Use when the user asks about Intercom, customer conversations, managing contacts or companies in Intercom, or CRM automation via Composio.'

Replace the generic 'automate tasks' with specific actions such as 'list conversations, create contacts, update companies, query segments, manage admins' to improve specificity.

Include natural synonyms and user-facing terms like 'customer support', 'help desk', 'CRM', 'messaging' to improve trigger term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (Intercom via Rube MCP/Composio) and lists entity types (conversations, contacts, companies, segments, admins) but doesn't describe concrete actions beyond the generic 'automate tasks'. The entities listed are nouns, not actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a reasonable 'what' (automate Intercom tasks across various entities) but lacks an explicit 'when' clause. The instruction to 'always search tools first' is operational guidance, not a trigger condition. No 'Use when...' clause is present, which per rubric guidelines caps this at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant keywords like 'Intercom', 'Composio', 'Rube MCP', 'conversations', 'contacts', 'companies', 'segments', 'admins'. However, it misses natural user phrases like 'customer support', 'messaging', 'help desk', 'tickets', or action-oriented terms users would say.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Fairly distinct due to the specific mention of 'Intercom', 'Rube MCP', and 'Composio', which narrows the scope considerably. Minor overlap risk with other CRM or customer support automation skills, but the platform-specific naming reduces conflict.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

90%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

10

/

11

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.