mixpanel-automation
Automate Mixpanel tasks via Rube MCP (Composio): events, segmentation, funnels, cohorts, user profiles, JQL queries. Always search tools first for current schemas.
77
66%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
97%
1.29xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/all-skills/skills/mixpanel-automation/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
82%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong description that clearly identifies its domain (Mixpanel analytics automation) with specific capabilities and natural trigger terms. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which caps completeness. The description is concise, uses third person voice correctly, and is highly distinctive.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about Mixpanel analytics, tracking events, building funnels, or querying user behavior data.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: events, segmentation, funnels, cohorts, user profiles, JQL queries. Also specifies the integration method (Rube MCP via Composio) and includes a procedural instruction (search tools first for current schemas). | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers 'what does this do' (automate Mixpanel tasks including events, segmentation, funnels, etc.), but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance. The when is only implied by the domain terms. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'Mixpanel', 'events', 'segmentation', 'funnels', 'cohorts', 'user profiles', 'JQL queries'. These are terms analytics users would naturally use when requesting Mixpanel-related tasks. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive due to the specific mention of 'Mixpanel', 'Rube MCP (Composio)', and Mixpanel-specific concepts like 'JQL queries', 'segmentation', and 'funnels'. Very unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a competent reference skill for Mixpanel automation that covers the major workflows with clear tool sequences and parameter documentation. Its main weaknesses are repetitive content (date formats and expression syntax repeated across multiple sections), lack of concrete executable examples showing actual tool calls with payloads, and missing validation/error-handling steps in workflows. Consolidating repeated information and adding one concrete end-to-end example would significantly improve it.
Suggestions
Add at least one concrete, complete example showing an actual RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS call followed by a Mixpanel tool call with real parameters and expected response structure.
Consolidate repeated pitfalls (date formats, expression syntax, rate limits) into the 'Known Pitfalls' and 'Common Patterns' sections only, removing duplicates from individual workflow sections.
Add validation/error-handling steps to core workflows, e.g., 'If response contains error key, check date format and event name casing' or 'Verify response has data before processing.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably structured but verbose for what it conveys. There's significant repetition across workflows (e.g., date format pitfalls repeated multiple times, expression syntax explained in individual sections AND in a dedicated Common Patterns section AND again in Known Pitfalls). The pitfalls sections per workflow could be consolidated. However, it doesn't explain basic concepts Claude already knows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides specific tool names, parameter names, and expression syntax examples, which is helpful. However, there are no executable code examples or concrete MCP call examples with actual payloads/responses. The 'ID Resolution' patterns use pseudocode-style numbered lists rather than showing actual tool invocations with parameters. A concrete example of a full workflow call would significantly improve actionability. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Workflows are clearly sequenced with prerequisite/required/optional labels and numbered steps. However, there are no validation checkpoints or error recovery steps. For example, after running an aggregation query, there's no guidance on validating the response or handling common error states. The setup section has a good validation flow (check connection is ACTIVE), but the core workflows lack similar verification steps. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-organized with clear sections and a useful quick reference table. However, it's a monolithic document (~180 lines of content) with no bundle files to offload detailed reference material. The expression syntax guide, detailed pitfalls, and per-workflow parameter documentation could be split into separate reference files. The single external link to Composio docs is appropriate but the skill itself could benefit from splitting. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 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 | |
- Repository
- davepoon/buildwithclaude
- Commit
74c7031
- 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.