review-test-coverage
Skill130 starsChanged 11 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the user asks for a pre-PR or diff review of tests, CI evidence, test harness changes, screenshots, recordings, or proportional validation. Finds reachable behavior that the changed tests or evidence fail to protect, separates code defects from external CI outages, and recommends the narrowest meaningful check.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 13
Read repository instructions and trace each changed branch to its owning layer and nearest existing test pattern.
- Distinctive: line 17
Keep code verdict, validation gaps, and external CI availability separate.
- Distinctive: line 19
Read references/validation-patterns.md when the diff touches authorization or ownership, state transitions, persistence or migrations, …
- Distinctive: line 23
Test canonical business rules at the domain or application owner.
- Distinctive: line 24
Test transport validation, authorization annotations, request-context wiring, and error mapping at the boundary.
- Distinctive: line 25
Use a real database or service integration test when mapping, SQL, constraint, migration, or protocol behavior is the risk.
- Distinctive: line 27
Use the closest frontend render or interaction test, then type, lint, or build checks according to blast radius.
- Distinctive: line 31
Run the narrowest relevant check first.
- Very specific: line 39
Use blocked only when the diff or a critical contract cannot be evaluated.
- Very specific: line 43
Use P0 for an unprotected credible authorization, tenant, payment, secret, personal-data, or permanent data-loss path.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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
Test Coverage Review
Review only unless the user separately authorizes fixes. Do not rerun external CI, post comments, or change pull-request state.
Review contract
- Establish the base, changed behavior, affected surfaces, and validation performed after the last edit.
- Read repository instructions and trace each changed branch to its owning layer and nearest existing test pattern.
- Identify the observable failure the change can cause and the narrowest test or check that would detect it.
- Exclude untouched coverage debt, duplicate tests at every layer, style preferences, and speculation without a reachable changed failure.
- Report only findings with confidence of at least 80/100, anchored to a changed location with the missing behavior, evidence, smallest test direction, and exact validation command.
- Keep code verdict, validation gaps, and external CI availability separate.
Read references/validation-patterns.md when the diff touches authorization or ownership, state transitions, persistence or migrations, async retries, UI interaction, CI or harness setup, infrastructure, or operational scripts.
Select validation by ownership
- Test canonical business rules at the domain or application owner.
- Test transport validation, authorization annotations, request-context wiring, and error mapping at the boundary.
- Use a real database or service integration test when mapping, SQL, constraint, migration, or protocol behavior is the risk.
- Cover failure, retry, duplicate or idempotency, and allowed or forbidden transitions only where those branches changed.
- Use the closest frontend render or interaction test, then type, lint, or build checks according to blast radius.
- Require browser or media evidence only for material visual or interaction behavior.
- Render infrastructure and exercise success plus failure or rollback paths when deployment behavior changes.
Run the narrowest relevant check first. Broaden only when the changed blast radius requires it.
Interpret evidence
- Validation must occur after the final relevant edit.
- A test-harness-only change is not a production regression when it restores the intended test signal.
- Checkout, runner, provider, registry, or service failures before repository commands run are external verification gaps, not findings against the diff.
- Portability issues involving line endings, executable bits, interpreters, time zones, locales, or filesystem behavior are findings only when the changed harness has a concrete supported-platform failure.
- Use
blockedonly when the diff or a critical contract cannot be evaluated.
Priorities and output
Use P0 for an unprotected credible authorization, tenant, payment, secret, personal-data, or permanent data-loss path; P1 for user or operational correctness, contract, state, rollout, or integrity; and P2 for a bounded regression or missing validation with a concrete failure path.
Verdict: clean | findings | blocked
Reviewed: [changed behavior, owning layer, tests, and current evidence]
Findings:
[P1][confidence 94] Title — changed/path:line
Mechanism: [reachable unprotected failure]
Evidence: [changed branch and current test gap]
Direction: [smallest test or check]
Validation: [exact command or visual scenario]
Verified non-findings: [adequate coverage and traps rejected]
Verification needed: [at most two non-finding gaps or external reruns]In this repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- branch-cleanerSkill
- bug-triageSkill
- ci-fixSkill
- commit-workSkill
- create-prSkill
- dependency-upgraderSkill
- docs-syncSkill
- focused-tddSkill
- manage-product-ideasSkill
- pr-visual-explainerSkill
- rebase-assistantSkill
- regex-builderSkill
- release-notesSkill
- review-architecture-scopeSkill
- review-backend-changeSkill
- review-frontend-changeSkill
- review-security-privacySkill
- vps-checkupSkill
- write-ui-copySkill
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
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.

