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.

69

Quality

87%

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

78%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, actionable skill body with a clear worked example, anti-patterns table, and a single appropriately-linked reference. The main gaps are undefined helper functions in the example code and the verification feedback loop being delegated to the reference rather than inline in the primary workflow.

Suggestions

Inline a validate->fix->retry checkpoint in the 'How to use' flow (e.g. after reading the matrix, spot-check high-priority 'full' rows before filing action items) rather than deferring all verification to the reference.

Replace the undefined helpers (read, extract_acs, read_all) in the Python example with concrete implementations or standard-library calls so the script is copy-paste runnable.

Trim the Overview's restatement of the description's niche and shorten the worked-example coverage matrix to the rows needed to illustrate full/partial/none, removing redundant framing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and avoids explaining basic concepts, but the Overview re-states the description's niche and the full worked-example coverage matrix is fairly long; both could be trimmed, so it sits at 'efficient with minor over-explanation' rather than the lean level above.

4 / 5

Actionability

It provides concrete, mostly-executable guidance - a real Python script, config YAML, and a full output example - but relies on undefined helpers (read, extract_acs, read_all) and hardcodes openai/gpt-4, leaving minor gaps that keep it just below fully copy-paste-ready.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The five-step 'How to use' sequence is clear and includes a verification step, but the validate->fix->retry feedback loop for this batch operation lives in the reference file rather than as an explicit inline checkpoint, keeping it below the explicit-validation-loops level.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body keeps the core mapping logic inline and offloads scheduling/verification detail to a single, clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference (continuous-coverage-and-verification.md) that is linked both in the workflow and the References section, matching the well-signaled one-level-deep anchor.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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, specific description that clearly states both what the skill does and when to use it, with a well-scoped niche that distinguishes it from sibling test-generation skills. Trigger-term coverage is very good though a few common synonyms (e.g. traceability matrix) are absent.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description 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', and 'Output is a coverage matrix per spec ID' - matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor rather than the minor-gaps level below.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' (maps tests to spec sections, outputs a coverage matrix per spec ID) and 'when' ('Use when a spec doc and a test suite both exist... before a release sign-off, an audit, or a decision about where to spend the next round of test effort') with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It uses natural domain terms a QA/release lead would say - 'spec doc', 'test suite', 'release sign-off', 'audit', 'gaps', 'coverage matrix' - but omits common variations like 'traceability matrix' or file-extension-style triggers, sitting above the midpoint rather than at fully comprehensive.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche and explicitly bounds it ('Scope is mapping tests that already exist and naming the gaps, not authoring tests for new acceptance criteria'), giving it distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk with adjacent skills.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

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