stripe-automation
Automate Stripe tasks via Rube MCP (Composio): customers, charges, subscriptions, invoices, products, refunds. Always search tools first for current schemas.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:davepoon/buildwithclaude --skill stripe-automation62
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
50%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 lists specific Stripe capabilities and identifies the integration method (Rube MCP/Composio), making it distinctive. However, it critically lacks any 'Use when...' guidance, which is essential for Claude to know when to select this skill from a large pool. The trigger terms could also be expanded to include more natural user language around payments and billing.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers like 'Use when the user asks about Stripe payments, billing, managing subscriptions, or processing refunds'
Include additional natural trigger terms users might say: 'payments', 'billing', 'payment processing', 'charge a card', 'cancel subscription'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'customers, charges, subscriptions, invoices, products, refunds' - these are distinct, actionable domains within Stripe. Also includes operational guidance about searching tools first. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes WHAT it does (automate Stripe tasks) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for WHEN Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing explicit trigger guidance caps completeness at 2, and this has no 'when' at all. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes 'Stripe' and specific Stripe entities (customers, charges, subscriptions, invoices, products, refunds) which are natural terms, but missing common variations like 'payments', 'billing', 'payment processing', or user phrases like 'process a payment'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Very clear niche - specifically 'Stripe' via 'Rube MCP (Composio)' makes this highly distinct. Unlikely to conflict with other payment or automation skills due to the specific platform and integration mentioned. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
57%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 Stripe operations via Rube MCP with good organization and a useful quick reference table. However, it lacks executable examples showing actual tool invocations, and the workflows would benefit from explicit validation steps and clearer sequencing (removing the confusing [Optional] markers). The repeated pitfall information about amount units could be consolidated.
Suggestions
Add at least one concrete example showing actual tool invocation with sample parameters and expected response structure
Replace [Optional] markers with clearer workflow guidance - either show the decision tree for when to use each tool, or provide a typical sequence for common scenarios
Add validation/verification steps to workflows (e.g., 'Confirm customer creation succeeded by checking response for cus_ ID')
Consolidate repeated pitfall information (amount units, ID prefixes) into the 'Known Pitfalls' section only, removing duplicates from individual workflows
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy - the pitfalls are repeated across sections (amount units mentioned 3+ times), and the quick reference table duplicates information already covered in workflows. Could be tightened by consolidating repeated information. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides tool names and parameter lists, but lacks executable code examples or concrete input/output demonstrations. The guidance is specific about what tools to call but doesn't show actual invocation syntax or expected response formats. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Tool sequences are listed but all steps are marked [Optional], making the actual workflow unclear. Missing validation checkpoints - no guidance on verifying successful operations or handling failures. The setup section has clear steps but core workflows lack explicit success/failure handling. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear sections, a quick reference table for scanning, and an external link to toolkit docs. Content is appropriately structured for a single SKILL.md file without needing additional files for this scope. | 3 / 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.