CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/coverage-py-analysis

Configures coverage.py for Python projects - wires `coverage run` (replacing `python` for instrumentation), enables branch coverage via the `--branch` flag or `branch = True` config, manages the `.coverage` data file (single-process and `combine` for parallel pytest-xdist runs), authors `.coveragerc` with `source` / `omit` / `fail_under`, and emits the format the downstream tool needs (`coverage report` for terminal, `coverage xml` for Cobertura, `coverage html` for human review, `coverage lcov` for SaaS, `coverage json` for programmatic post-processing). Use for any Python test stack (pytest, unittest, nose) that needs PR-time coverage signal.

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

Passed

No findings from the security scan

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 highly actionable, well-sequenced skill body with executable commands, config, scripts, and a CI shape plus a useful anti-patterns checklist. Its main weakness is conciseness: it explains concepts Claude already knows and carries time-sensitive version metadata that bloats the context budget.

Suggestions

Drop the quoted blockquote defining coverage.py and the 'de facto Python coverage solution / pytest-cov is a thin wrapper' aside — Claude already knows what coverage.py is.

Move the 'Current version is 7.13.5 (March 2026)' / 'source fetch on 2026-05-05' detail into a dated changelog or omit it, so time-sensitive version info does not consume the context budget.

Tighten the branch-coverage explanation ('catches the case where every line is executed but not every condition arm') to a one-line rationale instead of a tutorial-style elaboration.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and actionable, but includes concepts Claude already knows (a quoted blockquote defining what coverage.py is, an explanation of branch coverage) plus time-sensitive version info ('Current version is 7.13.5', 'source fetch on 2026-05-05') outside any deprecated section, which the rubric penalizes.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides fully executable bash commands, a complete `.coveragerc` ini block, a runnable `per_file_gate.py` script, and a copy-paste CI yaml workflow — concrete and copy-paste ready throughout.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–8 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (`coverage report --fail-under=80`, the per-file gate exiting non-zero), and the Anti-patterns table functions as a checklist; the operations are not destructive so the missing explicit fix-and-retry loop does not cap the score.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Clear overview with well-organized sections, easy navigation, and one-level-deep external references ([coveragepy-docs]) that are clearly signaled; no nested file chains or wall-of-text disorganization.

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, third-person description that names concrete actions, supplies natural trigger terms, and includes an explicit 'Use for' clause covering both what and when. It occupies a clear niche with low conflict risk against sibling skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'wires `coverage run`', 'enables branch coverage via the `--branch` flag', 'authors `.coveragerc` with `source` / `omit` / `fail_under`', and emits specific output formats — matching the multiple-specific-actions anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (the enumerated configuration actions) and when via the 'Use for any Python test stack (pytest, unittest, nose) that needs PR-time coverage signal' trigger clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are well covered: 'coverage.py', 'pytest', 'unittest', 'nose', 'PR-time coverage signal', 'Cobertura', 'LCOV', rather than technical jargon.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped tightly to coverage.py configuration with distinct triggers; adjacent parsers (lcov-analysis, cobertura-analysis) are clearly downstream consumers, so it is unlikely to fire for the wrong skill.

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: 2 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents