CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

skill-coverage-audit

Trace codepaths in diffs, map against tests, auto-generate missing coverage — use before shipping PRs

66

Quality

79%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/skill-coverage-audit/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 well-structured, highly actionable skill body with a clear phased workflow, hard limits, and concrete templates. Remaining gaps are minor: duplicated cap content in the Red Flags table, placeholder-laden search commands, delegated rather than inline test validation, and references to bundle files that do not exist.

Suggestions

Replace the placeholder-bracketed search commands in Phase 2 (e.g., grep -rl "[module_name]" tests/) with one fully worked example against a real filename so they are copy-paste ready.

Add an inline validation step in Phase 4 that runs the generated tests (or inline the essential check from skill-verification-gate) so the generate phase is not solely dependent on an external skill.

Collapse the Red Flags entries that restate the Caps and Limits section into a single pointer, freeing tokens for the missing trigger/coverage details.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence (tables, commands, templates, no concept explanations), but the Red Flags table duplicates the Caps and Limits section ("Exceed the 30-path cap", "Generate more than 20 tests", "Spend more than 2 min on one path"). Efficient overall with minor redundancy that could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete executable commands are provided (git diff variants, find/grep test-search commands) plus exact table templates and a scoring rubric. However, several commands embed placeholder brackets ("[changed_file_stem]", "[module_name]", "[function_name]") requiring substitution, so they are not fully copy-paste ready.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear Phase 1-4 sequence with explicit caps, fallback behavior ("mark it as 'needs manual review' and move on"), and a Quick Reference recap. Test-suite validation exists only as a cross-reference to skill-verification-gate rather than an inline checkpoint, leaving a minor validation gap in the generate-tests phase.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections with no nested references and appropriately inline core content. The body references files outside this bundle (skills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md) and sibling skills (flow-deliver, skill-tdd, skill-verification-gate) that are not present, a minor navigation/organization gap.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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: concrete imperative actions, an explicit use-when trigger, and a clear niche. Its weaknesses are minor — a few missing natural synonyms and slight overlap risk with code-review skills triggered by PR shipping.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Trace codepaths in diffs, map against tests, auto-generate missing coverage" lists several specific concrete actions in a named domain, but omits the scoring, visualization, and reporting capabilities the skill actually performs. It exceeds the 1-2-action anchor but has minor coverage gaps versus the comprehensive anchor.

4 / 5

Completeness

The what is explicit ("Trace codepaths in diffs, map against tests, auto-generate missing coverage") and the when is an explicit trigger clause ("use before shipping PRs"). Both questions are answered clearly with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"diffs", "tests", "coverage", and "shipping PRs" are natural phrases users would say when needing this skill. A few common variations are missing (e.g., "test coverage", "unit tests", "untested code"), so it falls short of comprehensive synonym coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The test-coverage-audit niche is clear with distinct triggers (diffs, tests, coverage), but "use before shipping PRs" carries minor overlap risk with general code-review or PR-review skills. Mostly distinct rather than minimal-conflict.

4 / 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
nyldn/claude-octopus
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.