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.

1.75x

Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

95%

1.75x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/all-skills/skills/supabase-automation/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

57%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The body is highly actionable and well-sequenced, with concrete tool/parameter detail throughout. Its main weaknesses are duplicated pitfall content, missing post-write verification for destructive SQL, and a monolithic structure with no progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Deduplicate pitfalls: keep them only in "Known Pitfalls" (or only inline per workflow) and cross-reference, to recover token efficiency.

Add an explicit verify step after destructive SQL writes (e.g. re-query the affected rows or wrap multi-statement changes in a transaction with rollback on error) to lift workflow clarity past the destructive-operation cap.

Move the detailed per-workflow parameter reference and/or the Quick Reference table into a separate reference file (e.g. references/tools.md) and link to it from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Content is operationally dense and assumes competence, but pitfalls (project_ref format, array syntax, case-sensitive quoting, ERROR 42P01/42883) are restated in both per-workflow "Pitfalls" blocks and the later "Known Pitfalls" section, so it could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	Concrete tool slugs, exact parameter names, filter operators, regex patterns, and error codes give mostly executable guidance; the gap is the absence of worked end-to-end invocation examples.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Numbered "Tool sequence" steps with [Prerequisite]/[Required]/[Optional] tags and a "confirm ACTIVE" checkpoint are clear, but destructive SQL operations (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE) lack an explicit post-write verification or rollback feedback loop, capping this at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The file is well-sectioned with a Quick Reference table, but it is a single 233-line monolith with no bundle files; the per-workflow parameter reference and pitfalls are content that could be split into separate reference files.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 specific, distinctive, and action-oriented, but it omits an explicit "when to use" trigger clause, which caps its completeness. Adding a "Use when..." sentence would lift the weakest dimension.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user wants to query or manage a Supabase database, inspect table schemas, run SQL, or manage Supabase projects, storage, or edge functions."

Include common synonyms/user phrasings such as "Supabase SQL", "PostgreSQL on Supabase", or "Supabase API keys" to broaden trigger term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Enumerates six concrete capability areas ("database queries, table management, project administration, storage, edge functions, and SQL execution"), matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor.	5 / 5
Completeness	The "what" is explicit, but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance ("Always search tools first" is a how, not a when), so completeness is capped at 3 per the judging guidelines.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms like "Supabase", "database queries", "SQL execution", and "edge functions" are present, but it lacks synonyms or file-extension variants, leaving a few natural terms missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Scoped tightly to Supabase via Rube MCP (Composio), a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: davepoon/buildwithclaude
Path: plugins/all-skills/skills/supabase-automation/SKILL.md
Commit: a9fa86d

Reviewed: about 18 hours 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.