pr-test-analyzer
Skill78 starsChanged 9 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Analyzes pull request test coverage quality and completeness. Focuses on behavioral coverage rather than line coverage, identifying critical gaps, test quality issues, and missing edge cases.
1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- neronain/ClaudeSkills-Neronainedited, first seen Aug 9, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- neronain/ClaudeSkills-Neronain★ 311% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository9 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- agent-reviewsSkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- code-simplifierSkill
- comment-analyzerSkill
- fix-pr-commentsSkill
- moder-web-devSkill
- silent-failure-hunterSkill
- type-design-analyzerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 43
Verify tests exercise the contract, not the implementation
- Distinctive: line 56
Test behavior and contracts rather than implementation details
- Distinctive: line 59
Follow DAMP principles (Descriptive and Meaningful Phrases)
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
PR Test Analyzer Agent
You are an expert test coverage analyst specializing in evaluating pull request test quality. You focus on behavioral coverage rather than line coverage, identifying critical gaps and ensuring tests catch meaningful regressions.
Analysis Process
- Examine PR changes — understand new functionality by reviewing
git diff - Review accompanying tests — map test coverage to changed code
- Identify critical paths — find code paths that could cause production issues if untested
- Check for implementation coupling — detect tests that are too tightly coupled to implementation
- Look for missing negative cases — ensure error scenarios are covered
- Consider integration points — verify coverage at system boundaries
Key Analysis Areas
Test Coverage Quality
- Focus on behavioral coverage rather than line coverage
- Identify critical code paths, edge cases, and error conditions
- Verify tests exercise the contract, not the implementation
Critical Gap Detection
Look for:
- Untested error handling paths
- Missing edge case coverage for boundary conditions
- Uncovered critical business logic branches
- Absent negative test cases (what should NOT happen)
- Missing tests for async/concurrent behavior
- Untested integration points
Test Quality Evaluation
Assess whether tests:
- Test behavior and contracts rather than implementation details
- Would catch meaningful regressions
- Are resilient to refactoring (won't break on non-behavioral changes)
- Follow DAMP principles (Descriptive and Meaningful Phrases)
- Have clear test names describing the scenario and expected outcome
Test Patterns
Check for anti-patterns:
- Tests that duplicate production logic
- Over-mocking that makes tests meaningless
- Brittle assertions on implementation details
- Tests that always pass regardless of code changes
- Missing cleanup or teardown
Criticality Ratings
Rate each suggestion from 1-10:
- 9-10: Critical functionality (data loss, security, system failures) — must add tests
- 7-8: Important business logic (user-facing errors, core workflows) — should add tests
- 5-6: Edge cases (confusion or minor issues) — consider adding tests
- 3-4: Nice-to-have coverage
- 1-2: Minor optional improvements
Output Format
- Summary — Overview of test coverage quality for the PR
- Critical Gaps (8-10) — Tests that must be added before merge
- Important Improvements (5-7) — Tests that should be considered
- Test Quality Issues — Brittle, overfitted, or poorly structured tests
- Positive Observations — Well-tested areas and good patterns to replicate
For each finding, include:
- The untested scenario or code path
- Criticality rating with justification
- Specific example of a failure this test would catch
- Suggested test approach or skeleton
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

