coverage
Skill2 starsChanged 33 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when planning or placing tests rather than writing one — which layer a behaviour belongs in ("unit or E2E for X", "component test or browser test"), which tests to run for a change instead of the whole suite, when to extract a fixture, setting up an isolated disposable E2E environment, or the per-project testing profile and the stack pack it names (Django, Vue, Playwright, Payload, Svelte). Fires on "which tests should I run", "run only the affected tests", "set up E2E for this project", "generate test-e2e.sh", "how do we test this stack". Not for: writing or changing a test (/aidex:testing); running a coverage audit, the module map / coverage matrix, tracking a finding, or suite-speed measurement — all of that is audit''s test-coverage playbook.
- Reads credentials
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
- grodowski/undercover-claudetheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- AsiaOstrich/universal-dev-standardstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use scan, lint and 8 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
SentrySkille2e
Run E2E tests for Sentry JavaScript SDK test applications
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.
In this repository21 other files it gives its agents.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 25 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 69
Read <project>/.context/profiles/testing.md.
- Distinctive: line 129
Read references/01-layer-model.md's six layers and the assignment rubric.
- Distinctive: line 161
All three are mechanical, not a judgment call — apply them while writing or moving tests, not only when reviewing them later.
“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
Coverage
Scope. This skill carries the doctrine — layers, selection, fixtures, the boundary gate, the profile — and no framework content; the concrete test shapes live in the stack packs the project's profile names. Precision against
auditis theNot forclause.
The testing canon, independent of stack: which layer a piece of behaviour belongs in,
which tests to run for a change, when shared setup becomes a fixture, what an isolated
E2E environment must guarantee, and how the per-project profile and its stack packs are
resolved. What a test looks like in a given framework is not here: the project's
.context/profiles/testing.md names its stack packs (testing_packs), and this skill
reads them — see Resolving the stack packs. Per-project
facts (ports, database names, commands, personas) live in that profile, never here — see
references/14-testing-profile.md.
The full suite is a boundary gate, not a phase gate. Per change, run the narrowest
selection that can observe it (/aidex:audit affected-tests --command, or the profile's
single-test command, or one spec via ./test-e2e.sh e2e/<spec>.spec.ts); the whole suite
runs once, at plan close-out or pre-merge. A full E2E suite costs ~5 minutes; spending
that per change is what this rule exists to stop.
A test that execs a script that can hang runs it bounded — own process group killed
on timeout, plus an inherited CPU cap — never a bare timeout=, which orphans the
grandchildren. The rule and its incident live in ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/bugfix/SKILL.md step 3.
Writing a test is testing's. The four questions asked before a test is added, the
one-owner rule and the patterns of a test that earns nothing live in
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/testing/SKILL.md; this skill is the doctrine it points to.
What this skill is not. It does not run an audit, does not build or read
module-map.json or coverage-matrix.json, does not track a finding through its
lifecycle, and does not carry the suite-speed measurement procedure. All of that is
audit's test-coverage playbook (skills/audit/assets/templates/methodology/test-coverage.md.template).
The split is by type, not by overlap: this skill owns the reference corpus and authoring
rules — including the per-module judgment-pass checklist (references/06-judgment-pass.md)
that the playbook's judged layer runs; the playbook owns inventory, finding lifecycle,
matrix, sweep and escalation, and is the one that executes that checklist. The
one rule with a foot in both — "a coverage percentage without a declared denominator is
not a measurement" (m7) — is not duplicated: the playbook runs it as an inventory-time
check ("is the denominator declared? can coverage even run?"), this skill states it as an
authoring rule for anyone writing a new coverage-bearing test.
When to read what
| Question | Read |
| Which layer does this test belong in? | references/01-layer-model.md |
| What does current upstream documentation say about a stack-independent correctness or cost trap? | references/02-best-practices.md |
| When do I extract a fixture? | references/03-fixtures-convention.md |
When does a frontend test file move to __tests__/? | references/03-fixtures-convention.md |
| How do I run a full-scale layer audit of an E2E suite? (template + row format) | references/04-e2e-layer-audit.md |
| How do I check changed-lines coverage on a branch? | references/05-diff-cover.md |
| What is the per-module checklist the playbook's judged layer runs (endpoint census, scaffold sweep, cross-layer duplicates)? | references/06-judgment-pass.md |
| This test passes — what would make it pass over broken code anyway? | references/15-green-that-proves-nothing.md |
| This test is correct — is it worth keeping, or does another test already own the failure? | testing's references/16-tests-that-earn-nothing.md |
| Which tests do I run for this change, and when does the selection widen? | references/13-affected-tests-expansion.md |
| What goes in the per-project profile, which stack packs exist, and what never goes in the profile? | references/14-testing-profile.md |
How do I write a backend / component / store / E2E test, which helpers exist, how is the disposable E2E environment built and test-e2e.sh generated, how do seed generators work? | The stack pack named by the profile — see below |
This is the only table of references; references/00-index.md records which plan phase produced each file.
Resolving the stack packs
- Read
<project>/.context/profiles/testing.md. If it does not exist, seed it:python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/coverage/scripts/profile-init.py <project>(never--forceover an existing one; blank keys are unanswered, not zero). - Take
testing_packs— a space-separated list of skill names — and read each pack's~/.claude/skills/<pack>/SKILL.md; its "Question -> file" table says which of its references answers the question at hand. Read with Read; a pack is never invoked as a skill (disable-model-invocation: true), so nothing fires on its own. - Apply the doctrine here first — layer, selection, gate — then the pack's shape. When the two disagree, the doctrine wins and the disagreement is a project decision, not a profile line.
testing_packsblank or naming a pack that is not installed: say so and name the missing pack; do not improvise the framework content from memory, and do not add it to this skill. A stack with no pack gets a newtesting-<framework>pack inmyskills(the shape is inreferences/14-testing-profile.md).
The full pack table is in references/14-testing-profile.md.
What the generated test-e2e.sh guarantees
The Playwright packs generate the script; this is the contract their template is tested
against (testing-playwright-app/tests/test-gen-test-e2e.sh asserts each line):
- It targets a disposable database cloned from a template, never dev's, and never ships a dev-port Playwright config.
- It sources the checkout's
.envbefore its port defaults apply and exportsE2E_DB_PORT, so anworktreecheckout drives its own stack; it never setsCOMPOSE_PROJECT_NAME(the worktree owns it). - It reclaims the image layer its run orphans: every rebuild inside the run leaves the
previous image untagged but still labelled with the compose project, so the ids tagged
before the run that are dangling after it are removed by exact id (never
prune, never volumes); a failed build moves no tag and removes nothing. Proven against a real daemon bytests/test-layer-reclaim.sh. Background: aidex BL-372/BL-377, the 289 layers that filled Docker's virtual disk on 2026-09-08.
The shape of the docs this skill writes
This skill writes into two places in a project, and each has one shape
(reference/references/03-shaping.md is the canon; this is its application):
| Place | Holds | Never holds |
.context/profiles/testing.md | facts only — the keys in references/14-testing-profile.md and the template's one note | a ## section, a rule, an explanation of a rule |
.context/references/testing/00-index.md | the single entry: what each module is for, and the rule → owner table | a rule's body |
.context/references/testing/NN-<slug>.md | one workflow per module, under the ~2,500-word tripwire | a second workflow; a rule another module already states |
- No rule is stated in two files. The index says which module owns it; the others link. Two modules restating the same rule drift apart and end up contradicting each other, and the reader has no way to tell which copy is current.
- A doc this skill extends past ~2,500 words is split into a new module, never
appended. The tripwire asks "is there a second workflow in here?"; the answer for a
cross-dependency map that gains execution groups is yes, so the groups get their own
NN-execution-groups.mdand the index a new row. cross_deps_refmay name a folder or several modules, not one file — a single named file is where every later workflow gets appended until it is a monolith.python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/coverage/scripts/profile-init.py --check <project>is the tripwire in script form: it warns on a prose section in the profile and on anyreferences/testing/*.mdover 2,500 words. Run it at the close of any phase that touched either.
How to use the layer model
- Read references/01-layer-model.md's six layers and the assignment rubric.
- Apply the rubric's maxim: test the decision, not the pixels — except when the browser is what decides. If the correctness question is "did the right thing happen" (a total computed, a row persisted, a permission enforced), it belongs at the lowest layer that can observe that. If the correctness question is "did the browser render, lay out, or navigate correctly" — CSS-dependent behaviour, focus order, a router transition — or "does the real frontend + backend + database integration hold", which a mock cannot vouch for, no layer below E2E can answer it, so that is where it belongs.
- State the layer and the one-sentence reason when proposing where a new test goes; do not silently default to E2E because it is the layer that can see everything — that is exactly the over-assignment the rubric exists to prevent.
How to use the best-practices corpus
references/02-best-practices.md holds the
stack-independent entries: item 5 quotes a fetched primary source with its check date, item
1 records the sweep itself, item 4 is flagged unverified, items 7 and 8 point to
01-layer-model.md, and items 2, 3 and 6 are stubs pointing at the stack pack that now
carries them (a framework trap lives with its framework). Do not extend this file by transcribing anything from a chat, a consultation
artifact, or a session transcript. A new item is only added once its primary source has
been fetched and quoted, with a version and a date attached — that constraint is the reason
this file exists rather than a copy of an unverifiable draft. Items marked unverified are
flagged as such deliberately and must not be promoted to a stated fact without re-checking
the source.
How to use the fixtures convention
references/03-fixtures-convention.md states the
rule-of-three trigger (extract to __fixtures__/ at the third test repeating the same
setup), the authoring form of m7, and the __tests__/ layout ratchet (s4): a test file
moves to __tests__/ when the code it covers is touched, never as a scheduled mass move.
All three are mechanical, not a judgment call — apply them while writing or moving tests,
not only when reviewing them later.
How to use the E2E layer audit
references/04-e2e-layer-audit.md is the template:
scope discipline, row format, and how a verdict is argued against the rubric above —
E2E (stays) or candidate (a lower layer could observe the same failure). A completed
table is project data and lives in that project's own .context/, never in this skill.
It is an audit, not a queue — a candidate verdict names the reason and the
likely lower layer; deciding to move a spec, and moving it, is separate work.
How to use diff-cover
references/05-diff-cover.md documents the on-demand
changed-lines coverage check: the exact host-run command, the recorded threshold and its
ADR, and why it is never a hook or CI gate (q4). Point someone here when a gap finding
is being closed with new tests, or when asked "did the branch I just wrote test its own
changes" — never propose wiring this into a hook or pipeline; the reference states why not.
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.

