CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

automate

Use this skill to create Cursor Automations.

Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.cursor/skills-cursor/automate/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%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 delivers exceptionally concrete, executable guidance with a well-sequenced workflow and genuine validation feedback loops, but it pays for this with heavy internal repetition and a monolithic structure that inlines reference-grade material (trigger tables, MCP gates, YAML shape) that belongs in bundled files. Consolidating duplicated rules and splitting the appendix and MCP gate details into references would raise both conciseness and progressive disclosure without losing actionability.

Suggestions

State each house rule once (e.g. the Agents-Window stop message, the serverName rule, the empty-Slack-channel rule) and reference it elsewhere instead of repeating it 3-5 times — this alone would cut a large fraction of the 36 KB.

Move the Appendix trigger selection tables, the MCP existence/auth gates, and the YAML output shape into separate reference files under references/ (e.g. triggers.md, mcp-gates.md, yaml-shape.md) linked from a lean SKILL.md overview, enabling progressive disclosure.

Trim the YAML output shape and validation sections to the essential skeleton plus the top failure modes, keeping the exhaustive proto-key enumeration in a reference file where detail-seekers can find it.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body restates the same rules three to five times: "Please use this skill in the Agents Window" appears at lines 15, 27, 120, 124, and 220; the serverName-vs-serverIdentifier rule at lines 69, 179, and 277; and the empty-Slack-channel prohibition at lines 49, 56, and 252. This is noticeably verbose with several padded, redundant sections (anchor 2), though it avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, so it is not a 1.

2 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is fully concrete and executable: exact commands (`gh repo view owner/repo --json defaultBranchRef,nameWithOwner`, scoped `gh search repos` variants), exact paths (`~/.cursor/mcps/<folder>/SERVER_METADATA.json`), copy-paste cron examples, an exact draft-table template, exact tool names, and exhaustive trigger oneof keys cover the common cases. As an instruction-only skill, the absence of code is not penalized and the guidance is copy-paste actionable.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The execution spine gives a clear numbered sequence with a finish-availability check first, stages 0-3 in order, explicit gates with hard stops (PCD matrix, MCP existence and auth gates), and a post-approval validation checklist. Feedback loops are explicit: auth -> re-check -> resume drafting, and validation failure -> plain-language explanation -> fix, matching the anchor-5 pattern.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Section headers and internal navigation are good (better than anchor 2's headerless inline dump), but this is a 36 KB monolithic SKILL.md with no bundle files at all — trigger selection tables, MCP gate details, YAML/proto shape, and integration-discovery procedures are all inlined when they clearly belong in separate reference files. Anchor 3 (content that should be separate is inline) is the best fit; not 4 because the split is absent, not merely gapped.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

48%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 concise and names a distinct product surface, but it is minimal to a fault: one generic action verb, no concrete capabilities, and no explicit "Use when..." trigger guidance. Most of the skill's actual scope (trigger selection, tools, draft table, editor handoff) is invisible from the description alone.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to create, set up, or build a Cursor Automation (scheduled, Slack, GitHub/GitLab, Linear, PagerDuty, Sentry, or webhook triggered agents)."

List 1-2 concrete capabilities so the "what" goes beyond a single verb, e.g. "guides trigger and tool selection, resolves Slack channels and repos via discovery, and hands off a reviewed draft to the Automations editor."

Include natural user phrases and synonyms ("automation", "scheduled agent", "set up") to improve trigger-term coverage, since the body itself warns that generic automation requests are common.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Use this skill to create Cursor Automations" names the domain but offers only the single generic action "create" with no concrete capabilities (triggers, tools, draft/editor handoff) stated. Anchor 3 requires 1-2 concrete actions beyond the domain, which this lacks.

2 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is stated (create Cursor Automations) but the "when" is only weakly implied by the purpose clause — there is no explicit "Use when..." trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not a 4 because a purpose clause is not an explicit trigger condition.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"create Cursor Automations" is the precise product phrase a user would say, but the description includes no natural variations or synonyms such as "set up", "schedule", "trigger", or "automation". Keyword coverage is relevant but thin, matching anchor 3 rather than 4.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Cursor Automations" names a specific product surface with mostly distinct triggers, but the body's own extensive disambiguation section (warning against CI pipelines, GitHub workflows, and generic "automate this" requests) demonstrates real overlap risk with generic automation phrases. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk matches anchor 4.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

saski/arnesto

Path

.cursor/skills-cursor/automate/SKILL.md

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.