CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/coverage-diff-reporter

Builds a per-PR coverage delta report from any pair of LCOV / Cobertura / JSON coverage outputs (current run + baseline from the merge target) - emits a per-file table with line% / branch% deltas, called-out new files, hidden drops (overall +0.1pp but one file -8pp), and a single-line PR-comment summary. Use when the team has coverage in CI but needs human-readable PR feedback that points at the specific file the reviewer should focus on, not just an aggregate number.

63

Quality

79%

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

57%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.

Well-structured and concrete with executable code and a clear workflow, but held back by duplicated motivation prose, absent validation checkpoints for a batch operation, and dangling bundle-file references that don't exist on disk.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation checkpoint between parsing and diffing (e.g. 'Verify current.json and baseline.json parsed all files; abort or warn if any coverage fields are missing') to satisfy the batch-operation feedback-loop requirement.

Either ship the referenced bundle files (scripts/parse_lcov.py, scripts/coverage_diff.py, references/cobertura.md) or reword the in-body references so they don't imply local files that aren't present.

Trim the Overview so it doesn't restate the description's motivation, and tighten the Limitations bullets that explain general coverage-tool behavior Claude already knows.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient with concrete steps, code, and tables, but the Overview duplicates the motivation already in the description and several Limitations bullets explain general knowledge (measurement jitter, baseline staleness) that could be trimmed.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides executable compute_diff/classify code and real GitHub Actions YAML with specific action versions, but references undefined helpers (pct, delta) and scripts/parse_lcov.py that are not provided as bundle files, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step sequence with two baseline patterns is present, but this batch/reporting operation has no validation checkpoints (e.g. verify parsed outputs before diffing, handle missing fields) or validate-fix-retry loops, capping it at 3 per the batch-operations guideline.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Section headers and one-level-deep sibling-skill references are well organized, but in-body references to references/cobertura.md and scripts/*.py do not resolve to any real bundle files (no references/scripts/assets dirs exist), creating navigation dead-ends.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

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 capabilities and a concrete trigger context in third person. Minor room to broaden trigger-term synonyms, but otherwise exemplary.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete, domain-specific actions — 'Builds a per-PR coverage delta report', 'emits a per-file table with line% / branch% deltas', 'called-out new files', 'hidden drops', 'single-line PR-comment summary' — for comprehensive coverage.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (delta report, per-file table, summary) and when via a concrete 'Use when the team has coverage in CI but needs human-readable PR feedback...' trigger clause.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural terms a user would say ('coverage', 'PR', 'coverage in CI', 'PR feedback', 'aggregate number') plus LCOV/Cobertura, but a few common synonyms (e.g. 'code coverage report', 'test coverage') are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — per-PR coverage delta/diff reporting with named formats — that is distinct from aggregate gates and per-line drilldown tools, with minimal conflict risk.

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: 7 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents