coverage
Skill2 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub
Test coverage feedback loop using undercover. Guides Claude to run undercover after tests to identify untested code changes, handle partial test runs with --include-files, and set up SimpleCov, CI pipelines, and coverage merging.
28 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- wboayue/rust-ibapitheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- KadirHarmanc/nazar-skilltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- LeanMeanCleanApps/CleanModelContextProtocoltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- AsiaOstrich/EngramGraphtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- AsiaOstrich/universal-dev-standardstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- mystilleef/spae-frameworktheir own version, first seen Oct 28, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use scan, lint and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
rajnavakotiSkillscan
Run the AI dashboard scanner and generate the HTML report.
Also in 4 projects that use this
Microsoft AzureSkilllint
Run all linting and spell checking for TypeScript and Rust code. Run this before committing to catch style issues, clippy warnings, and misspellings.
Also in 4 projects that use this
julienamorganSkillprofile
Researches the user's market, competitors, and competitive positioning to build a complete ICP profile. Shows findings for user approval before proceeding. Triggers: /profile, "research my market", "who are my competitors". Reads: ./gtm/company.md, ./gtm/icp.md. Writes: updates ./gtm/icp.md with competitive positioning. Standalone: yes (asks for domain if company.md missing).
Also in 3 projects that use this
asterkinSkilladr
Create Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following project standards. Guides template usage, process, and best practices for documenting architecturally significant decisions.
Also in 4 projects that use this
anombyte93Skilldiscover
Phase 1 of the prd-taskmaster pipeline: brainstorm-driven discovery. Delegates to superpowers:brainstorming in Interactive Mode (one adaptive question at a time), or self-brainstorms in Autonomous Mode when no user is present. Intercepts before the brainstorming chain hands off to writing-plans — this skill owns the exit. Extracts constraints, calibrates scale (Solo / Team / Enterprise), and advances the pipeline to GENERATE.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillworktree
Create, reuse or clean up a dedicated git worktree for working on a pull request or a private branch. Use from any PR-scoped workflow that needs an isolated checkout to keep current code and build output untouched.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions28 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 28
- FalkorDB/FalkorDB★ 10ksame name
- pydantic/monty★ 8.9ksame name
- LiberatedPixelCup/Universal-LPC-Spritesheet-Character-Generator★ 1.9ksame name
- firedancer-io/firedancer★ 1.6ksame name
- hegeldev/hegel-rust★ 400same name
- wboayue/rust-ibapi★ 400same name
- nockawa/Typhon★ 253same name
- Amplicode/spring-skills★ 126same name
- AsiaOstrich/universal-dev-standards★ 84same name
- hass-energy/haeo★ 77same name
18 more not listed
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.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 25 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 15
Use it to decide what to do, then read the matching reference file before acting:
- Distinctive: line 21
Run the feedback loop: after tests, or anything else → use the loop below (the default)
- Distinctive: line 25
If no intent was given, default to the feedback loop.
- Distinctive: line 29
After every test run, run undercover to check for coverage gaps.
- Very specific: line 31
Only use --include-files when you ran a partial test suite.
- Very specific: line 45
When running a subset of tests, SimpleCov only has coverage data for loaded files.
- Very specific: line 51
Run bundle exec undercover --format json (scoped with --include-files if partial)
- Distinctive: line 93
If no lines changed relative to the compare ref, undercover always passes.
- Distinctive: line 96
Use undercover to ensure new and modified code is tested.
- Very specific: line 107
If you commit as you go (the normal workflow), the default diff is empty after each commit and undercover always passes — a false green.
- Very specific: line 110
Use --compare in two situations:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 25 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Undercover Coverage Feedback
Routing
The user may have stated an intent after the command (shown below as $ARGUMENTS).
Use it to decide what to do, then read the matching reference file before acting:
- Set up coverage in a Ruby project (SimpleCov, Gemfile,
.undercover, permissions) → readreferences/setup.md - Set up CI (UndercoverCI or GitHub Actions; also CircleCI and parallel test merging) → read
references/ci.md - Read/address UndercoverCI feedback on a PR → read
references/pr-feedback.md - Skip coverage for a file (
# simplecov:disable,skip,--exclude-files) → readreferences/skipping.md - Run the feedback loop after tests, or anything else → use the loop below (the default)
Stated intent: $ARGUMENTS
If no intent was given, default to the feedback loop.
Coverage Feedback Loop
After every test run, run undercover to check for coverage gaps.
Only use --include-files when you ran a partial test suite. Full suite → no flag.
Full test suite:
bundle exec undercover --format jsonPartial test run (single file or subset — undercover must match scope):
bundle exec undercover --format json --include-files "app/models/foo.rb"
bundle exec undercover --format json --include-files "app/models/*.rb,app/services/foo*.rb"--include-files accepts comma-separated glob patterns, matched relative to the
directory SimpleCov ran in (in a monorepo, lib/foo.rb, not apps/dash/lib/foo.rb).
When running a subset of tests, SimpleCov only has coverage data for loaded files.
Without --include-files, undercover will falsely flag all other changed files as
uncovered.
Workflow:
- Run tests
- Run
bundle exec undercover --format json(scoped with--include-filesif partial) - If gaps found: write tests for uncovered code. Prefer real tests over
# simplecov:disable. Only use it when the code genuinely cannot or should not be tested (seereferences/skipping.md). Only delete code if you are certain it is dead/unreachable; understand why it's uncovered before removing it - Repeat until undercover exits 0
JSON output format
{
"warnings": [
{
"node": "Foo#bar",
"type": "instance method",
"file": "lib/foo.rb",
"first_line": 10,
"last_line": 15,
"coverage": 0.5,
"uncovered_lines": [11],
"uncovered_branches": [
{"line": 13, "block": 0, "branch": 0},
{"line": 13, "block": 0, "branch": 1, "description": "else"}
]
}
],
"summary": {"total_warnings": 1, "files_affected": 1},
"validation": "stale_coverage"
}uncovered_lines— lines with zero hitsuncovered_branches— branches with zero hits;descriptionpresent for ternary/case branchesvalidation— only present on errors (e.g.stale_coverage); exit code is 0 in this casewarningsempty + novalidation= all changed code covered
What Undercover Reports
Undercover checks only the lines changed in your current diff (compared against a git ref). It does NOT measure total coverage.
- "✅ No coverage is missing in latest changes" means the changed lines are covered — nothing more. The rest of the codebase could have 0% coverage.
- SimpleCov's percentage (e.g. "97.6% covered") and undercover's result are independent. Do not conflate them.
- If no lines changed relative to the compare ref, undercover always passes. This is expected, not a confirmation of coverage quality.
Use undercover to ensure new and modified code is tested. Use SimpleCov's total percentage to track overall coverage trends separately.
The compare ref
Undercover only sees files that are staged or have unstaged changes to tracked files. Completely untracked files (never added to git) are invisible — undercover will not check them.
By default (no --compare), undercover checks uncommitted changes — staged
and unstaged vs HEAD. This only catches work in progress.
If you commit as you go (the normal workflow), the default diff is empty after each
commit and undercover always passes — a false green. --compare is required.
Use --compare in two situations:
On a feature branch — to check all commits since branching off main:
-c origin/mainNo remote / local-only repo — compare against the initial commit SHA:
-c <initial-commit-sha>Set it in .undercover so it applies consistently. If .undercover already exists
in the project, use the ref it specifies — do not overwrite it.
-c origin/mainReference files
Deeper guides, loaded on demand (see Routing above):
references/setup.md— SimpleCov + Gemfile +.undercover+ Claude permissions + CLI referencereferences/ci.md— GitHub Actions, UndercoverCI, CircleCI, parallel test coverage mergingreferences/pr-feedback.md— reading UndercoverCI check annotations on a PR viagh apireferences/skipping.md—# simplecov:disable,skip,--exclude-filesand when to use each
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.

