CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/ai-spec-coverage-mapper

Build-an-X workflow that uses an LLM to map existing tests to spec sections - given a spec doc + the test suite, the LLM identifies which tests cover which sections, surfaces uncovered sections (gap), and recommends specific tests to add. Output is a coverage matrix per spec ID. Scope is mapping tests that already exist and naming the gaps, not authoring tests for new acceptance criteria. Use when a spec doc and a test suite both exist but nobody can say which requirements are actually covered - before a release sign-off, an audit, or a decision about where to spend the next round of test effort.

74

Quality

93%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

85%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-structured, actionable body with a real executable script, a clear workflow including verification, and proper progressive disclosure into one verified reference. The main weakness is mild verbosity in the worked-example matrix that could be trimmed.

Suggestions

Trim the coverage-matrix worked example (drop the '| ...' row and shorten emoji columns) to reduce tokens without losing the output-format illustration.

Define or inline the read/extract_acs/read_all helpers in scripts/ai-coverage.py so the example runs as printed.

Move the full coverage-trend block into the reference file, keeping only a one-line pointer in the worked example.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and does not over-explain known concepts, but the worked-example coverage matrix (with emoji columns and a trailing '| ...' row) plus the trend block could be tightened; some illustrative detail competes with context.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides a real, executable openai-based script with a concrete system prompt, concrete YAML inputs, and a copy-paste-ready output matrix; the only pseudocode is trivial I/O glue (read/extract_acs/read_all).

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clear 5-step sequence (point mapper, run, read matrix, file action items, schedule+verify) with an explicit verification checkpoint in step 5 and reinforced in the anti-patterns table, satisfying the batch-operation validation expectation.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections (Overview, When to use, How to use, Worked example, Anti-patterns, Limitations, References) with a single one-level-deep reference (continuous-coverage-and-verification.md) that exists on disk and is clearly signaled.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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: third-person voice, concrete actions, explicit Use-when triggers, and an explicit scope boundary that distinguishes it from sibling skills. It is slightly long but every clause earns its place.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions - 'map existing tests to spec sections', 'identifies which tests cover which sections', 'surfaces uncovered sections (gap)', 'recommends specific tests to add', 'Output is a coverage matrix per spec ID'.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both what (maps tests to spec sections, surfaces gaps, emits a coverage matrix) and when with an explicit 'Use when a spec doc and a test suite both exist ... before a release sign-off, an audit ...' trigger clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Uses natural terms a user would say - 'spec doc', 'test suite', 'coverage', 'release sign-off', 'audit', 'requirements are actually covered' - with good coverage of phrasings.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Has a clear niche (spec-vs-test coverage mapping) and explicitly scopes against ai-test-generator ('Scope is mapping tests that already exist ... not authoring tests'), making conflict unlikely.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents