analyzing-test-coverage
tessl i github:jeremylongshore/claude-code-plugins-plus-skills --skill analyzing-test-coverageThis skill analyzes code coverage metrics to identify untested code and generate comprehensive coverage reports. It is triggered when the user requests analysis of code coverage, identification of coverage gaps, or generation of coverage reports. The skill is best used to improve code quality by ensuring adequate test coverage and identifying areas for improvement. Use trigger terms like "analyze coverage", "code coverage report", "untested code", or the shortcut "cov".
Validation
81%| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
body_output_format | No obvious output/return/format terms detected; consider specifying expected outputs | Warning |
Total | 13 / 16 Passed | |
Implementation
20%This skill content is too abstract and verbose, describing what coverage analysis is rather than providing actionable instructions Claude can execute. It lacks concrete commands, executable code examples, and specific tool configurations. The content explains concepts Claude already understands while failing to provide the specific guidance needed to actually run coverage analysis.
Suggestions
Replace abstract examples with executable commands for each coverage tool (e.g., 'npx nyc npm test', 'pytest --cov=src')
Remove explanatory content about what coverage is and what the skill 'enables' - jump directly to concrete usage
Add actual code/command examples showing how to generate and parse coverage reports for at least one tool
Include validation steps for checking if coverage tools are configured and handling common errors
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is verbose and explains concepts Claude already knows (what coverage tools are, what line/branch/function coverage means). Phrases like 'This skill enables Claude to...' and 'It helps you identify gaps' are unnecessary padding. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | No executable code or concrete commands provided. Examples describe what 'the skill will' do abstractly rather than showing actual commands like 'nyc npm test' or specific coverage tool invocations. No copy-paste ready content. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are listed (collect data, generate report, identify uncovered code) but lack specifics. No validation checkpoints, no error handling for when coverage tools aren't configured, and no concrete commands for each step. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is reasonably organized with clear sections, but everything is inline in one file. The 'Integration' section hints at other tools but provides no references. Could benefit from linking to tool-specific guides for nyc, coverage.py, JaCoCo. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Activation
90%This is a well-structured skill description that clearly communicates its purpose and includes explicit trigger guidance. The main weakness is that the specific capabilities could be more concrete - listing specific actions like 'parse coverage XML files', 'calculate line/branch coverage percentages', or 'highlight uncovered functions' would strengthen the specificity dimension.
Suggestions
Add more concrete specific actions such as 'parse coverage XML/JSON files', 'calculate line and branch coverage percentages', or 'identify uncovered functions and methods' to improve specificity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (code coverage) and some actions ('analyzes code coverage metrics', 'identify untested code', 'generate comprehensive coverage reports'), but lacks specific concrete actions like what types of reports, what metrics are analyzed, or what formats are supported. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('analyzes code coverage metrics to identify untested code and generate comprehensive coverage reports') and when ('triggered when the user requests analysis of code coverage, identification of coverage gaps, or generation of coverage reports') with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes good natural trigger terms users would say: 'analyze coverage', 'code coverage report', 'untested code', and the shortcut 'cov'. These are terms developers would naturally use when needing this functionality. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Has a clear niche focused specifically on code coverage analysis with distinct triggers like 'coverage gaps', 'untested code', and 'cov' shortcut. Unlikely to conflict with general testing or code analysis skills due to specific coverage focus. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
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.