CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

linear-automation

Automate Linear tasks via Rube MCP (Composio): issues, projects, cycles, teams, labels. Always search tools first for current schemas.

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/linear-automation/SKILL.md

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

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.

The body delivers genuinely actionable, well-sequenced MCP tool guidance with concrete parameters and setup validation, but it is held back by redundancy (pitfalls stated twice, tool slugs listed twice, a vacuous closing 'When to Use' section) and by keeping the entire tool catalog inline in one long file instead of splitting reference material into a one-level-deep file. Deduplicating and splitting the quick reference would lift both conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Delete the vacuous 'When to Use' section ('This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.') and merge the 'Known Pitfalls' section into the per-workflow pitfalls to remove the duplicated priority and team-scoping rules.

Move the 18-row Quick Reference table into a references/tool-catalog.md file linked from SKILL.md, keeping only the workflow sequences inline for progressive disclosure.

Add a minimal example GraphQL query/mutation to the custom-query workflow and a brief example request payload (e.g., creating an issue) to close the remaining actionability gaps.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is terse, table-driven, and assumes Claude's competence, but has clear tightening opportunities: the 'Known Pitfalls' section repeats per-workflow pitfalls verbatim (the priority integer mapping and team-scoping rules each appear twice), the Quick Reference table re-lists every tool slug already named in the workflows, and the closing 'When to Use' section ('This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview') is pure filler. This is more than 'minor instances that could be trimmed', placing it at anchor 3 rather than 4, though it stops short of anchor 2's pervasive padding.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: named tool sequences tagged [Prerequisite]/[Optional]/[Required], exact parameter names ('team_id', 'state_id', 'issue_id'), the integer priority mapping (0-4), hex color spec for labels, and step-numbered ID-resolution patterns. Minor gaps keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5: the GraphQL workflow provides no example query, and there are no example request payloads.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Setup section includes an explicit validation checkpoint ('Confirm connection status shows ACTIVE before running any workflows'), and each workflow is an ordered, prerequisite-tagged tool sequence. Post-operation verification (e.g., confirming a created issue) is absent, but these are not destructive or batch operations, so the workflow-clarity cap does not apply — this matches 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' rather than score 5's explicit feedback loops.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist; all content is inlined in a single 183-line SKILL.md. Internal structure is good (clear headers per workflow), but the full tool catalog (the 18-row Quick Reference table and the GraphQL details) is inline content that would typically live in a one-level-deep reference file, and no references are present to signal. This matches anchor 3 (structure present, content that should be separate is inline); not anchor 2 because the file is well-sectioned and navigable, not anchor 4 because nothing is split out despite the length.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

61%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 identifies a clear, distinctive niche (Linear automation via Rube MCP) with good trigger nouns, but it uses one generic action verb ("Automate") instead of listing concrete capabilities, and it entirely lacks a 'Use when...' trigger clause. Adding explicit actions and a when-to-use clause would raise both specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Replace the generic verb 'Automate' with concrete actions, e.g. 'Create, search, and update Linear issues, projects, cycles, labels, and comments via Rube MCP (Composio)'.

Add a 'Use when...' clause with concrete triggers, e.g. 'Use when the user mentions Linear, Linear issues or tickets, cycles/sprints, or wants to automate Linear workflows'.

Include natural synonyms such as 'tickets' and 'sprints' so the description triggers on phrasings users actually say.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("Automate Linear tasks via Rube MCP (Composio)") and enumerates concrete objects ("issues, projects, cycles, teams, labels"), but the only action verb is the generic "Automate" — it never states whether it creates, searches, updates, or comments on these objects. This matches the score-3 anchor (domain plus limited concrete actions) better than score 4, which requires several specific actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (automate Linear operations via Rube MCP), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance — the second sentence ("Always search tools first for current schemas") is an operating instruction, not a "when". Per the rubric guideline, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms users would say — "Linear", "issues", "projects", "cycles", "teams", "labels" — but misses common synonyms like "tickets", "sprints", or "backlog". Good keyword coverage with a few natural terms missing matches the score-4 anchor; it falls short of score 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Linear" combined with "Rube MCP (Composio)" carves a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk; only minor overlap with generic issue-tracking or project-management skills. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk matches score 4, short of score 5 only because "tasks" and "projects" are somewhat generic nouns.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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/skills/linear-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.