one-drive-automation
Automate OneDrive file management, search, uploads, downloads, sharing, permissions, and folder operations via Rube MCP (Composio). Always search tools first for current schemas.
69
58%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
85%
1.70xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/all-skills/skills/one-drive-automation/SKILL.mdQuality
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 is strong in specificity and distinctiveness, clearly listing concrete OneDrive operations and naming the specific integration platform. However, it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which caps completeness, and could benefit from more natural user-facing trigger terms beyond the technical tool names.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about OneDrive files, cloud storage on Microsoft OneDrive, or needs to upload/download/share files via OneDrive.'
Include more natural user-facing trigger terms such as 'cloud storage', 'Microsoft OneDrive', 'share a link', or 'OneDrive folder' to improve keyword coverage.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: file management, search, uploads, downloads, sharing, permissions, and folder operations. Also specifies the tooling (Rube MCP / Composio). | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers 'what does this do' with a list of OneDrive operations, but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance. The instruction to 'always search tools first' is operational guidance, not a trigger condition. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant keywords like 'OneDrive', 'uploads', 'downloads', 'sharing', 'permissions', and 'folder operations', but misses common user variations like 'share a file', 'OneDrive link', 'cloud storage', or file extension mentions. The term 'Rube MCP (Composio)' is technical jargon unlikely to be used by end users. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The explicit mention of 'OneDrive' and 'Rube MCP (Composio)' creates a clear niche that is unlikely to conflict with other file management skills targeting different platforms like Google Drive or Dropbox. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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 solid reference document for OneDrive automation via Rube MCP with good structural organization, clear workflow sequencing, and useful pitfall documentation. Its main weaknesses are the lack of concrete executable examples (actual tool call payloads), some redundancy between per-workflow pitfalls and the summary pitfalls section, and missing explicit validation/confirmation checkpoints for destructive operations like deletes and permission changes.
Suggestions
Add at least one concrete, copy-paste-ready example per core workflow showing an actual MCP tool call with sample parameters and expected response structure.
Add explicit validation checkpoints for destructive workflows (delete, permission changes): e.g., 'Confirm item name matches before calling DELETE_ITEM' with a verify-then-act pattern.
Consolidate pitfalls — either keep them per-workflow or in the summary section, but not both, to reduce redundancy and improve conciseness.
Consider splitting detailed parameter references and the quick reference table into a separate REFERENCE.md file, keeping SKILL.md as a leaner overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly comprehensive but includes some redundancy — pitfalls are repeated across sections and the 'Known Pitfalls' summary section, the 'Common Patterns' section restates information already covered in workflows, and some parameter descriptions could be tightened. However, it mostly avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides specific tool names, parameter names, and key values, which is good. However, it lacks concrete executable examples — no actual MCP call invocations with sample payloads or expected response structures are shown. The guidance is specific but remains at the 'describe the parameters' level rather than 'here's a complete call you can copy'. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Workflows are clearly sequenced with labeled steps and prerequisite/required/optional annotations, which is strong. However, for destructive operations like DELETE and permission changes, there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops — just a mention in pitfalls to 'verify first'. The sharing workflow mentions verifying permissions but doesn't include a validate-then-proceed checkpoint pattern. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear sections and a quick reference table, but it's a monolithic ~250-line document with no bundle files. The detailed parameter lists and pitfalls for each workflow could be split into separate reference files, with the main SKILL.md serving as a leaner overview pointing to them. | 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.