CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

testland/ai-spec-coverage-mapper

Use when a spec and a test suite both exist but nobody can say which requirements are covered, before a release sign-off, an audit or planning test effort. Uses an LLM to map existing tests to spec sections, outputs a coverage matrix per spec ID and names the gaps. It does not write new tests.

Quality

84%

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

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

continuous-coverage-and-verification.mdreferences/

Continuous coverage mapping and LLM-claim verification

Deep reference for the ai-spec-coverage-mapper SKILL.md. Consult when scheduling the mapper on a cadence, or when hardening the report against LLM-hallucinated coverage claims.

Run it on a weekly cadence

A single mapping goes stale the moment ACs or tests change. Schedule it weekly and open an issue with the report:

on:
  schedule:
    - cron: '0 4 * * MON'

jobs:
  spec-coverage:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v5
      - run: python scripts/ai-coverage.py
      - uses: peter-evans/create-issue-from-file@v5
        with:
          title: 'Spec coverage report - week of ${{ github.event.repository.updated_at }}'
          content-filepath: spec-coverage-report.md

Filter to the ACs and tests changed since the last run to keep cost and runtime down - re-mapping the whole codebase every week is slow and expensive for no new signal.

Verify the LLM's coverage claims

LLMs may claim a test "covers" an AC when it doesn't. Before trusting a full row:

  • Spot-check the highest-priority ACs manually - read the named test and confirm it asserts what the AC requires.
  • Cross-reference with gherkin-from-stories's ATDD mode (in the qa-bdd plugin) if the team uses @AC-X.Y tags - those tags are the ground truth the LLM's semantic guess can be checked against.
  • Compare the LLM's claim against the test code in human review - the report is a starting point for triage, not an authority.

The mapper reads code; it does not run it. A test that imports cleanly but throws at runtime can still be classified "covered," so a green matrix is a prompt to verify, not a sign-off on its own.

SKILL.md

tile.json