CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

agentmail-check-email

Read, search, summarize, and triage AgentMail inboxes through the connected MCP server. Use for ANY request to look at, search, or process mail — even a simple 'search my inbox for X' or 'any new mail?'; the read workflow applies regardless of task size. Also use to summarize conversations, inspect attachments, manage read/unread labels, or find messages needing a reply; do not use for sending or drafting (agentmail-send-email), inbox administration (agentmail-manage-inboxes), or MCP connection setup (agentmail-mcp).

76

Quality

96%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

93%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.

A lean, highly actionable instruction-only skill: every step names the concrete MCP tool and its purpose, with genuine checkpoints and an appropriate inline/deferred content split. The only weakness is the absence of explicit error-recovery guidance and an only-implicit verification ordering in the label-updating triage loop.

Suggestions

Add one line of error-recovery guidance to the read workflow (e.g., on empty search results: retry with broader terms or report the inbox empty rather than treating it as failure).

Make the triage loop's verification ordering explicit, e.g., "Clear the `unread` label only after the message's full content was fetched and triaged".

Name the list operations in step 2 (`list_messages` / `list_threads`) as concretely as the search tools, so every tool family in the workflow is identified.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Every line is operational: tool names ("list_inboxes", "get_thread", "update_message"), pagination rules, field preferences, label mechanics, and security boundaries. No padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; even the one motivational sentence ("A triage loop that never updates labels will re-process the same mail forever") earns its place as a failure-mode warning. Not 4 because no section could be trimmed without losing guidance.

5 / 5

Actionability

Names the exact MCP tool for each situation ("Resolve the inbox with `list_inboxes`", "Fetch a single hit with `get_message`, or the whole conversation with `get_thread`", "Use `get_attachment` only when attachment content is required") and specifies fields ("Prefer `extracted_text` or `extracted_html`... fall back to `text` or `html`") and output format (inbox, sender, subject, timestamp, message ID, thread ID). Per the instruction-only scoring note, absence of code is not penalized; the guidance is fully executable against the MCP server. Not 4 because the named tools and fields leave no meaningful execution gap.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The six-step read workflow is clearly sequenced with real checkpoints ("Follow pagination until the requested range is covered", fetch full content "before summarizing body content") and a conditional fallback (extraction unavailable → `text`/`html`). Falls short of anchor 5 because there is no explicit error-recovery feedback loop (e.g., what to do on empty or failed search results), and the batch triage loop's verify-before-marking ordering is only implicit ("clearing `unread` after processing"). Not 3 because the sequence is coherent and most checkpoints are present and explicit.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Under 50 lines with well-organized sections and no local bundle files needed; the full threat model is deferred exactly one level with a clearly signaled path ("The full matrix and threat model live in the `agent-email-patterns` skill (`references/threat-model.md`)"), while only this skill's three-row contract is inlined. Not 4 because nothing inlined belongs in a separate file and the single cross-reference is explicit and shallow.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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.

An exemplary description: concrete capability list, literal example trigger utterances, explicit what/when coverage, and named sibling-skill disambiguation with negative boundaries. Third-person voice throughout, concise despite its density.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names multiple concrete actions covering the full read domain: "Read, search, summarize, and triage AgentMail inboxes through the connected MCP server" plus "summarize conversations, inspect attachments, manage read/unread labels, or find messages needing a reply". Not 4 because there are no minor gaps — every read-side capability of the domain is enumerated.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Read, search, summarize, and triage AgentMail inboxes through the connected MCP server") and when ("Use for ANY request to look at, search, or process mail", plus an "Also use to..." list) with concrete trigger phrases. Not 4 because the 'when' is not merely present — it is fully explicit with example triggers and negative boundaries.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes literal natural user utterances as triggers — "even a simple 'search my inbox for X' or 'any new mail?'" — alongside synonyms (mail, inbox, messages, conversations) and phrases like "find messages needing a reply". Not 4 because quoted example utterances exceed mere keyword coverage; the natural terms users would say are explicitly present.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (read/triage operations only) with explicit negative boundaries naming sibling skills: "do not use for sending or drafting (agentmail-send-email), inbox administration (agentmail-manage-inboxes), or MCP connection setup (agentmail-mcp)". Not 4 because overlap risk is not merely minor — wrong-skill triggers are explicitly routed to the correct skills by name.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

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

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
stevenknowswhy/ProfessionalBuyer
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.