CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

coverage

Analyze test coverage gaps. Use when user says "test coverage", "what's not tested", "coverage gaps", "missing tests", "coverage report", or "what needs testing".

68

Quality

86%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

82%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A lean, well-structured analysis workflow with concrete scanning heuristics and genuinely useful output templates for the matrix and test plan. Its gaps are modest but real: the templates/ reference is dangling (no such directory in the bundle), and there are no validation checkpoints confirming the matrix covers every mapped surface before coverage is reported.

Suggestions

Make the templates/ reference actionable: either list the actual template names/paths inline in step 5 (e.g., 'templates/auth/registration.md, templates/settings/*.md') or include the templates/ directory in the skill bundle.

Add a validation checkpoint to step 3 — e.g., 'Verify every route, component, and endpoint from step 1 appears in the matrix before computing the coverage percentage' — and handle the zero-existing-tests edge case in step 2.

State where templates/ and /pw:generate live (e.g., a sibling skill in the pw plugin) so Claude can resolve those references without guessing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean, well-sectioned steps with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; both example blocks (the coverage matrix and the recommended test plan) demonstrate expected output formats rather than pad. Matches anchor 5's 'every token earns its place'.

5 / 5

Actionability

Most steps are concrete and executable — 'Scan route definitions (Next.js `app/`, React Router config, Vue Router, etc.)', extract coverage 'by `page.goto()` calls' and 'by locator usage' — but step 5's 'Which template from `templates/` to use' points to a directory absent from the skill's bundle, so template selection cannot be executed. Fits anchor 4 ('mostly executable guidance... minor gaps') rather than 5's fully executable guidance.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly sequenced steps (map surface → map tests → matrix → prioritize → plan → optional generate) with a user-confirmation gate ('Ask user: Generate tests for the top N gaps? [Yes/No/Pick]') before any generation. Missing validation checkpoints — e.g., verifying every mapped route/component appears in the matrix, or handling a repo with zero spec files — matching anchor 4's 'minor validation gaps' rather than 5's explicit validation steps.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Appropriately single-file: the ~90-line body is well-sectioned with no content that belongs in separate files. However, the references to 'templates/' and '/pw:generate' resolve to nothing in this bundle — a minor navigation gap — so it fits anchor 4 ('references mostly clear; minor organization gaps') rather than 5's easy navigation.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

82%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description: an explicit what-plus-when structure with six natural trigger phrases and a distinct coverage-analysis niche. Its only weakness is a thin 'what' — a single action with no hint of the skill's actual outputs (coverage matrix, prioritized gaps, recommended test plan).

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Analyze test coverage gaps" names the domain and a single concrete action, but no other capabilities (coverage matrix, prioritized gaps, test plan) are mentioned. Matches anchor 3 ('1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive') — not 4 because only one action is listed, not 2 because the action is concrete rather than generic.

3 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Analyze test coverage gaps") and when ("Use when user says ..." with six concrete trigger phrases). Matches anchor 5's 'clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'; anchor 4's weakness — a 'when' that could be more explicit — does not apply here.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Six natural phrases users would actually say ("test coverage", "what's not tested", "coverage gaps", "missing tests", "coverage report", "what needs testing") give good coverage, but common synonyms like "code coverage" and "untested" are missing. Fits anchor 4 ('good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing') rather than 5's comprehensive synonym-level coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Analyze test coverage gaps" carves a clear niche (coverage analysis, not test writing) with distinct, coverage-specific triggers, so conflict risk is minimal — at most "missing tests" could overlap a test-generation skill, which anchor 5 still tolerates.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

alirezarezvani/claude-skills

Path

engineering-team/playwright-pro/skills/coverage/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.