Free SKILL.md scraped from GitHub. Clone the repo or copy the file directly into your Claude Code skills directory.
npx versuz@latest install ronnasayd-ai-pair-programming-skills-test-coverage-reviewgit clone https://github.com/Ronnasayd/AI-pair-programming.gitcp AI-pair-programming/SKILL.MD ~/.claude/skills/ronnasayd-ai-pair-programming-skills-test-coverage-review/SKILL.md---
name: test-coverage-review
description: "A skill for performing a deep analysis of test coverage for either a task specification (pre-implementation) or a completed task (post-implementation). Use this skill to identify missing scenarios, edge cases, and error paths, and to ensure that the testing strategy is robust and follows best practices."
argument-hint: "[target]: A string containing the task specification, a file path to a task spec, or a description of the implemented changes/tests to be analyzed."
---
MANDATORY: Use test-coverage-specialist agent
MANDATORY: execute the {target} argument as the target for coverage analysis and follow the specialist's instructions.
Your objective is to provide a critical evaluation of the testing strategy or implemented tests, ensuring no behavioral gaps exist.
====================
PHASE 1 — CONTEXT GATHERING
====================
1. If the target is a **Task Specification**:
- Analyze the proposed "Testing Strategy" section.
- Cross-reference with the "Problem Summary" and "Proposed Action Plan" to identify all logic branches.
2. If the target is a **Completed Task**:
- Locate the modified source files and their corresponding test files in the @workspace.
- Analyze the implementation logic to map out all `if/else`, `switch`, and `try/catch` blocks.
- Read the existing tests to see which scenarios are actually covered.
====================
PHASE 2 — COVERAGE ANALYSIS
====================
Evaluate the target against the following dimensions:
- **Happy Path**: Are the primary success flows covered?
- **Alternate Paths**: Are secondary success scenarios addressed?
- **Edge Cases**: Are boundary values, empty states, and null/undefined handled and tested?
- **Error Paths**: Are failures (API errors, timeouts, invalid inputs) tested?
- **Assertion Quality**: Do the tests actually verify the outcome, or just execute the code?
====================
PHASE 3 — REPORT GENERATION
====================
Generate a report and save it as:
`docs/agents/reviews/coverage/yyyy-mm-dd-<short-description>.md`
The report MUST follow this structure:
<format>
# Test Coverage Review: <Task Title>
## Summary of Analysis
Brief overview of the current coverage state (e.g., "Good happy path coverage, but missing error handling tests").
## Identified Scenarios & Coverage Status
| Scenario Type | Description | Status | Missing/Improvement |
| ------------- | ----------- | ------ | ---------------------------- |
| Happy Path | ... | [x] | - |
| Edge Case | ... | [ ] | Missing test for empty input |
| Error Path | ... | [ ] | No test for 500 API error |
## Critical Logic Branch Mapping
List key decision points in the code/spec and whether they have tests.
## Recommended Test Cases
Specific descriptions of tests that should be added.
| Level | Description | Inputs | Expected Output |
| ----- | ----------- | ------ | --------------- |
| Unit | Handle null | null | Throw error |
## Best Practices & Quality Feedback
Feedback on AAA pattern, naming, mocking, and assertion precision.
</format>
====================
PHASE 4 — VERIFICATION
====================
Present the report to the user and ask for feedback.
If the analysis was on a **Task Specification**, suggest updating the spec with the recommended tests before proceeding with implementation.