coda-automation
Automate Coda tasks via Rube MCP (Composio): manage docs, pages, tables, rows, formulas, permissions, and publishing. Always search tools first for current schemas.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:davepoon/buildwithclaude --skill coda-automation71
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
67%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 effectively communicates specific Coda-related capabilities and is distinctive due to the explicit Rube MCP/Composio integration reference. However, it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause and relies on some technical jargon that users wouldn't naturally use when requesting help.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about Coda documents, wants to automate Coda workflows, or mentions Coda tables/pages.'
Include more natural user terms like 'Coda spreadsheet', 'Coda database', or 'Coda automation' that users might actually say when requesting help.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'manage docs, pages, tables, rows, formulas, permissions, and publishing' - these are distinct, actionable capabilities within the Coda domain. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers 'what' (automate Coda tasks, manage various elements) but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause. The 'when' is only implied through the Coda context, not explicitly stated. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant terms like 'Coda', 'docs', 'pages', 'tables', 'rows', 'formulas' but misses common user variations like 'spreadsheet', 'database', or explicit file extensions. 'Rube MCP (Composio)' is technical jargon users wouldn't naturally say. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clearly targets Coda specifically via 'Rube MCP (Composio)' integration, making it highly distinct from generic document or spreadsheet skills. Unlikely to conflict with other tools. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
62%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides comprehensive coverage of Coda operations with well-structured workflows and clear tool sequences. However, it lacks concrete executable examples with actual payloads, and the document is verbose with some redundancy between sections. The workflow clarity is strong with good sequencing, but actionability suffers from pseudocode-style patterns rather than real API call examples.
Suggestions
Add concrete executable examples with actual JSON payloads for key operations like CODA_UPSERT_ROWS showing the exact row object structure
Move the Quick Reference table to a separate REFERENCE.md file and link to it, reducing the main skill file length
Consolidate repeated pitfalls (like ID formats appearing in multiple sections) into a single 'Common Pitfalls' section to reduce redundancy
Replace pseudocode patterns with actual tool call examples showing input parameters and expected response structure
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy - pitfalls are repeated across sections, and some explanations (like what document IDs look like) could be trimmed. The quick reference table duplicates information already covered in workflows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides clear tool sequences and parameter lists, but lacks executable code examples. The 'patterns' section uses pseudocode-style numbered steps rather than actual API call examples with concrete payloads. No copy-paste ready examples for common operations. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Workflows are clearly sequenced with explicit steps marked as [Required], [Optional], or [Alternative]. The export workflow includes polling guidance, and upsert patterns include prerequisite steps. Validation is implicit through the tool sequence structure. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections, but the document is quite long (200+ lines) with all content inline. The toolkit docs link is provided but detailed reference material (like the full quick reference table) could be split into a separate file. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 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.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- 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.