render-automation

Automate Render tasks via Rube MCP (Composio): services, deployments, projects. Always search tools first for current schemas.

1.32x

Quality

37%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

89%

1.32x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/all-skills/skills/render-automation/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

40%

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 niche (Render automation via Rube MCP/Composio) which makes it distinctive, but it lacks concrete action verbs, natural trigger terms users would say, and an explicit 'Use when...' clause. The procedural instruction about searching tools first is an implementation detail that doesn't help with skill selection.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to deploy to Render, manage Render services, check deployment status, or work with Render.com projects.'

Replace the noun list with specific action verbs: 'Create and manage Render web services, trigger deployments, list projects, check deployment logs, and configure environment variables.'

Include natural user trigger terms like 'deploy', 'hosting', 'render.com', 'web service status', 'redeploy' that users would naturally say when needing this skill.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (Render via Rube MCP/Composio) and lists some actions (services, deployments, projects), but these are nouns rather than concrete verbs describing specific actions. The instruction to 'search tools first' is a procedural note rather than a capability description.	2 / 3
Completeness	Provides a partial 'what' (automate Render tasks) but has no explicit 'when' clause or trigger guidance. The absence of a 'Use when...' clause caps this at 2 per the rubric, and the 'what' itself is also quite thin, bringing it to 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant keywords like 'Render', 'services', 'deployments', 'projects', 'Composio', and 'Rube MCP', but misses common user variations like 'deploy', 'hosting', 'web service', 'render.com', or specific actions users might request.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The combination of 'Render', 'Rube MCP', and 'Composio' creates a very specific niche that is unlikely to conflict with other skills. These are distinctive enough identifiers to clearly separate this from other deployment or infrastructure skills.	3 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Implementation

35%

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

The skill provides a reasonably well-structured guide to Render automation via Rube MCP with clear tool names and parameter documentation. Its main weakness is significant verbosity and redundancy—pitfalls, ID formats, and pagination details are repeated 3-4 times across sections, wasting token budget. The content would benefit from deduplication, more concrete executable examples, and explicit error-handling guidance in workflows.

Suggestions

Deduplicate aggressively: remove the per-workflow 'Pitfalls' subsections and consolidate all pitfalls into the single 'Known Pitfalls' section, or vice versa. The same ID format and pagination information appears 3-4 times.

Replace pseudocode patterns in 'Common Patterns' with concrete tool call examples showing actual parameter values (e.g., a real RUBE_SEARCH_TOOLS call followed by RENDER_TRIGGER_DEPLOY with specific serviceId).

Add explicit error handling/validation steps to workflows—e.g., 'If LIST_SERVICES returns no matches, confirm spelling with user before proceeding' and 'If deploy status is build_failed, retrieve logs before retrying'.

Remove explanations of concepts Claude already knows (what ISO 8601 is, what pagination means, that async operations need polling) to reduce token usage by ~30%.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Significant redundancy throughout. The same pitfalls (ID formats, pagination, service types) are repeated across multiple sections. The 'Known Pitfalls' section largely duplicates information already stated in each workflow's 'Pitfalls' subsection. The 'Common Patterns' section repeats tool sequences already described in 'Core Workflows'. Much of this content (ISO 8601 parsing, what pagination is, how async deploys work) is knowledge Claude already has.	1 / 3
Actionability	Provides specific tool names, parameter names, and ID format patterns, which is useful. However, there are no actual executable code examples—the 'Common Patterns' section uses pseudocode-style numbered lists rather than real tool invocations with concrete parameter values. The guidance is specific enough to follow but not copy-paste ready.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Multi-step workflows are clearly sequenced with labeled steps (Prerequisite, Required, Optional), and the deploy-and-monitor pattern includes a polling loop with terminal states. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints or error recovery steps—e.g., what to do if TRIGGER_DEPLOY fails, or if the service name doesn't match any results. The setup section has a good verification flow though.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is structured with clear headers and a quick reference table, which aids navigation. However, it's a monolithic document with substantial repetition that could benefit from splitting detailed pitfalls or patterns into separate reference files. No bundle files exist to offload content to, and the single file is quite long for what it covers.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

Warnings & errors only

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: d065ead

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.