CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

gmail-automation

Automate Gmail tasks via Rube MCP (Composio): send/reply, search, labels, drafts, attachments. Always search tools first for current schemas.

76

1.52x
Quality

65%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

96%

1.52x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/all-skills/skills/gmail-automation/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

62%

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

This is a well-structured reference skill for Gmail automation via Rube MCP with clear workflow sequences and thorough pitfall documentation. Its main weaknesses are significant content repetition across sections (especially ID format warnings and attachment constraints), lack of concrete executable call examples, and being monolithic when it could benefit from splitting detailed references into separate files.

Suggestions

Deduplicate repeated pitfalls (ID formats, attachment mimetype, thread_id format) by consolidating them in the 'Known Pitfalls' section and referencing it from individual workflows instead of restating.

Add at least one concrete, copy-paste-ready MCP tool call example (e.g., a full RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS or GMAIL_SEND_EMAIL invocation with realistic parameters) to improve actionability.

Move the Gmail Query Syntax reference and Quick Reference table into separate bundle files (e.g., QUERY_SYNTAX.md, QUICK_REFERENCE.md) and link from the main skill to improve progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is fairly comprehensive but has significant repetition — pitfalls about ID formats, thread_id hex strings, and attachment mimetypes are repeated across multiple sections and again in the 'Known Pitfalls' summary. The Gmail query syntax section explains basic operators Claude already knows. Some tightening would reduce token usage by ~30% without losing information.

2 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides clear tool names, parameter names, and sequences, which is good. However, there are no executable code examples or concrete MCP call examples with actual payloads — everything is described in prose/lists rather than shown as copy-paste-ready tool invocations. The ID resolution patterns use pseudocode-style numbered steps rather than concrete examples.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Each workflow has a clear tool sequence with explicit ordering, prerequisite steps, required vs optional designations, and detailed pitfalls. The setup section includes a verification step before proceeding. Batch operations note the 1000-message limit with chunking guidance, and pagination has a clear loop-until-absent pattern. The label deletion workflow notes irreversibility.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The content is a monolithic single file at ~250 lines with no bundle files to offload detail into. The detailed pitfalls, query syntax reference, and quick reference table could be split into separate files. However, the internal organization with clear sections and a summary table partially compensates. The external link to Composio docs is appropriate but there's no layered file structure.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

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 is concise and lists specific Gmail capabilities effectively, making it clear what the skill does. However, it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause and misses common trigger terms like 'email' or 'inbox' that users would naturally use. The technical reference to 'Rube MCP (Composio)' adds distinctiveness but doesn't help with user-facing discoverability.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about sending emails, managing Gmail, or working with email attachments.'

Include common user-facing trigger terms like 'email', 'e-mail', 'inbox', 'compose', 'mail' to improve discoverability beyond just 'Gmail'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions: send/reply, search, labels, drafts, attachments. These are clear, actionable capabilities within the Gmail domain.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers 'what' (automate Gmail tasks: send/reply, search, labels, drafts, attachments) but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause. The 'when' is only implied by the capabilities listed, capping this at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes good keywords like 'Gmail', 'send', 'reply', 'search', 'labels', 'drafts', 'attachments', but misses common user variations like 'email', 'e-mail', 'inbox', 'compose', 'mail'. The mention of 'Rube MCP (Composio)' is technical jargon unlikely to be used by end users.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clearly scoped to Gmail via Rube MCP (Composio), which is a very specific niche. The combination of the platform (Gmail) and the integration method (Rube MCP/Composio) makes it highly distinctive and unlikely to conflict with other skills.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

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.

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
davepoon/buildwithclaude
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.