SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB zoom-automation

Automate Zoom meeting creation, management, recordings, webinars, and participant tracking via Rube MCP (Composio). Always search tools first for current schemas.

sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills Agent Skills author: sickn33 MIT 1 file body ≈ 2 774 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 d ago

Automate Zoom meeting creation, management, recordings, webinars, and participant tracking via Rube MCP (Composio).

As a process B 71/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, running it twice, progress reporting

ProcedureZoomAI and agentsData and analyticstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
92/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
81
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
71/100
Nearly there
Progress reporting w 2
0
Running it twice w 4
30
Result and completion w 14
40
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

The same skill appears in 2 more places: agentic-awesome-skills, agentic-awesome-skills

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "risk"
    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "source"
    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "date_added"
    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 161): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 71/100

    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 11 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 85Steps. 111 steps, 1 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2774 tokens

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 162: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 21 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 111 items
    • +4Has examples (0 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 81.