supabase-automation
Automate Supabase database queries, table management, project administration, storage, edge functions, and SQL execution via Rube MCP (Composio). Always search tools first for current schemas.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:davepoon/buildwithclaude --skill supabase-automation72
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
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 effectively communicates specific Supabase capabilities and uses appropriate technical terminology. However, it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause that would help Claude know when to select this skill over others. The operational instruction about searching tools first is useful but doesn't serve as trigger guidance.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'Supabase project', 'Supabase database', 'Supabase storage', or when users mention their Supabase backend.
Include common variations users might say such as 'postgres', 'backend-as-a-service', 'BaaS', or 'Supabase API' to improve trigger term coverage.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'database queries, table management, project administration, storage, edge functions, and SQL execution'. Also specifies the tool context (Rube MCP/Composio). | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers 'what' with specific capabilities, but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause. The instruction to 'search tools first' is operational guidance, not trigger guidance for when to select this skill. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes 'Supabase', 'database queries', 'SQL', 'storage', 'edge functions' which are relevant keywords, but missing common variations users might say like 'backend', 'BaaS', 'postgres', or file extensions. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Very distinct with 'Supabase' as a clear niche identifier. Unlikely to conflict with generic database skills due to the specific platform and tooling (Rube MCP/Composio) mentioned. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%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, actionable guidance for Supabase automation with specific tool names, parameters, and pitfalls. However, it's verbose for its scope, lacks validation checkpoints for database write operations, and could benefit from splitting detailed parameter documentation into separate reference files.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation steps after SQL write operations (e.g., 'Verify row count changed as expected before proceeding')
Consolidate the three 'Pitfalls' sections into a single 'Known Pitfalls' section to reduce redundancy
Move detailed parameter lists (PostgREST operators, key parameters) to a separate REFERENCE.md file and link to it
Add a feedback loop for RUN_SQL_QUERY: 'If error, check schema with GET_TABLE_SCHEMAS, fix query, retry'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is comprehensive but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeated pitfalls sections, verbose parameter descriptions). The content could be tightened by consolidating pitfalls and removing explanatory text that Claude would infer from tool names. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides specific tool names, exact parameter formats (e.g., 20-character lowercase project_ref pattern), concrete filter operators, and a quick reference table. Tool sequences are explicit and copy-paste ready for MCP tool calls. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Tool sequences are clearly numbered with prerequisites marked, but lacks explicit validation checkpoints for database operations. For SQL writes and destructive operations, there's no 'verify before proceeding' step or error recovery loop. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections and a quick reference table, but the document is monolithic (~200+ lines) with detailed parameter lists inline. The toolkit docs link exists but detailed workflows could be split into separate files. | 2 / 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.