test-coverage
Analyzes test coverage and generates missing tests to achieve 80%+ coverage
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:sc30gsw/claude-code-customes --skill test-coverage65
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
32%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
The description communicates the core purpose adequately but suffers from missing explicit trigger guidance, which is critical for skill selection. It provides a specific coverage target (80%+) which adds some distinctiveness, but lacks the natural keywords and 'Use when' clause needed for reliable skill matching.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers like 'Use when the user asks about test coverage, wants to increase coverage percentage, needs to identify untested code, or mentions coverage reports.'
Include more natural trigger terms users would say: 'unit tests', 'code coverage', 'coverage gaps', 'untested code', 'coverage report', specific frameworks like 'Jest', 'pytest', 'JUnit'.
Specify what types of tests are generated (unit tests, integration tests) and what languages/frameworks are supported to improve distinctiveness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (test coverage) and two actions (analyzes, generates), but lacks comprehensive detail about what types of tests, frameworks, or specific analysis methods are used. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (analyzes coverage, generates tests) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes 'test coverage' and 'tests' which are relevant keywords, but misses common variations users might say like 'unit tests', 'code coverage', 'coverage report', 'missing tests', or specific framework names. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The focus on test coverage and 80%+ target provides some distinction, but could overlap with general testing skills or code quality skills without clearer boundaries. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is concise and well-structured for its scope, avoiding unnecessary explanations. However, it lacks concrete executable examples for the core task (generating tests) and misses validation/feedback loops for when generated tests fail or coverage targets aren't met. The guidance is more of a checklist than actionable instructions.
Suggestions
Add a concrete code example showing how to parse coverage-summary.json and identify under-covered files
Include a sample generated test template or example showing the expected output format for unit/integration tests
Add explicit feedback loop: 'If tests fail, analyze error -> fix test -> re-run. If coverage still below 80%, identify additional untested paths and repeat step 4'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient, listing only essential steps without explaining what test coverage is or how testing frameworks work. Every line serves a purpose. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides specific commands (npm test --coverage) and mentions the coverage file path, but lacks executable code examples for generating tests or analyzing the JSON report. The guidance is directional rather than copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced (1-7), but lacks explicit validation checkpoints. Step 5 'Verify new tests pass' is vague - no feedback loop for what to do if tests fail or coverage doesn't improve. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a simple skill under 50 lines with a single focused task, the content is well-organized with clear sections (numbered steps + focus areas). No need for external references given the scope. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 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 — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- 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.