coverage-report-analyzer
Coverage Report Analyzer - Auto-activating skill for Test Automation. Triggers on: coverage report analyzer, coverage report analyzer Part of the Test Automation skill category.
35
3%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
92%
0.98xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./planned-skills/generated/09-test-automation/coverage-report-analyzer/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
7%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description is essentially a title with boilerplate metadata rather than a functional skill description. It lacks any concrete actions, meaningful trigger terms, or explicit usage guidance. It would be nearly impossible for Claude to reliably select this skill from a pool of similar test-related skills.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Parses coverage reports (lcov, cobertura, Istanbul), identifies uncovered code paths, summarizes coverage percentages by file/module, and highlights coverage regressions.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about code coverage, test coverage reports, coverage percentages, uncovered lines, .lcov files, or coverage gaps.'
Remove the duplicated trigger term and replace with diverse natural language variations users would actually say, such as 'coverage report', 'test coverage', 'code coverage', 'coverage summary', 'coverage threshold'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names a domain ('Coverage Report Analyzer') but does not describe any concrete actions. There are no specific capabilities listed such as parsing coverage files, identifying uncovered lines, generating summaries, etc. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer 'what does this do' beyond the name, and there is no explicit 'when should Claude use it' clause. The 'Triggers on' line is just the skill name repeated, not meaningful trigger guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The trigger terms are just 'coverage report analyzer' repeated twice. It misses natural user phrases like 'code coverage', 'test coverage', 'coverage percentage', 'uncovered lines', '.lcov', 'coverage gaps', etc. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The term 'Coverage Report Analyzer' is somewhat specific to a niche (test coverage analysis), which provides some distinctiveness. However, the lack of concrete actions or file types means it could overlap with general test automation or reporting skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is an empty template with no substantive content. It repeatedly references 'coverage report analyzer' without ever explaining what that means, how to parse coverage reports, what formats to support, or providing any code examples. It is entirely non-functional as a skill and would provide no value to Claude beyond what it already knows.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable code examples for parsing common coverage report formats (e.g., lcov, Cobertura XML, Istanbul JSON) with specific libraries and commands.
Define a clear workflow: e.g., 1) Locate coverage report, 2) Parse format, 3) Extract key metrics (line/branch/function coverage), 4) Identify uncovered areas, 5) Generate summary with actionable recommendations.
Remove all boilerplate sections (Purpose, When to Use, Capabilities, Example Triggers) that describe the skill meta-information rather than providing actual instructions.
Add specific examples showing input (a sample coverage report snippet) and expected output (analysis summary with coverage gaps identified).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is entirely filler and boilerplate. It explains nothing Claude doesn't already know, repeats 'coverage report analyzer' excessively, and provides zero actual technical content about analyzing coverage reports. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There are no concrete instructions, code examples, commands, or executable guidance whatsoever. The skill describes what it could do in abstract terms ('provides step-by-step guidance') without actually providing any guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow, steps, or process is defined. The skill claims to provide 'step-by-step guidance' but contains zero steps. There are no validation checkpoints or any actionable sequence. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a monolithic block of vague descriptions with no references to detailed materials, no links to related files, and no structured navigation to deeper content. The sections present are all superficial metadata rather than organized instructional content. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Commit
3076d78
- 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.