Name: testland/coverage-py-analysis
Rating: 69.6 (1 reviews)
Author: testland

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.

Quality

87%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

82%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, highly actionable skill body with concrete executable examples across bash/ini/python/yaml and a clear stepwise workflow with validation gates. It is slightly held back by a padded overview block and references to bundle paths that do not exist on disk.

Suggestions

Trim the opening overview doc blockquote and move the version/date stamp ('As of the source fetch on 2026-05-05...') into a dedicated, clearly labeled section so it does not read as evergreen context.

Either create the referenced bundle files (scripts/per_file_gate.py, references/cobertura.md) or reword the body so it does not point to paths that are absent, keeping progressive disclosure honest.

Add an explicit validate→fix→retry loop for the coverage gate (e.g., on fail_under or per-file-gate failure, show the missing lines, fix tests, re-run) to push workflow clarity to 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient and action-oriented, but the opening doc blockquote explaining what coverage.py is and the version stamp ('As of the source fetch on 2026-05-05, Current version is 7.13.5') are mild over-explanation / time-sensitive detail placed outside any 'old patterns' section. Not a 5 because of those padded bits; not a 3 because the bulk is lean, executable guidance.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides copy-paste-ready bash, ini, python, and yaml throughout — e.g. 'coverage run --branch -m pytest', a full .coveragerc, a complete per_file_gate.py, and a CI workflow — covering the common cases concretely.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear Step 1–8 sequence with real validation checkpoints (coverage report --fail-under, the per-file gate exiting non-zero, the 'Without combine, only the last process's data survives' warning). Not a 5 because there is no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop; not a 3 because checkpoints are clearly present and the skill is not destructive.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized single file with clear section headers and a References section; no bundle directories (references/, scripts/, assets/) exist, so all content is appropriately inline. Minor gap: the body references paths like 'scripts/per_file_gate.py' and 'references/cobertura.md' that are not present as bundle files. Not a 5 because those referenced files are not real bundle artifacts; not a 3 because structure and navigation are good.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

88%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 concretely enumerates coverage.py configuration actions and output formats and includes an explicit 'Use for' trigger clause. It is slightly jargon-heavy and has minor overlap risk with adjacent coverage skills, but cleanly answers both what and when.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'wires coverage run', 'enables branch coverage via the --branch flag or branch = True config', 'manages the .coverage data file', 'authors .coveragerc with source / omit / fail_under', and emits five named output formats — giving comprehensive coverage of capabilities.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Configures coverage.py ... authors .coveragerc ... emits the format the downstream tool needs') and when ('Use for any Python test stack (pytest, unittest, nose) that needs PR-time coverage signal') with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural user-facing terms ('Python test stack', 'pytest, unittest, nose', 'PR-time coverage signal', 'branch coverage') but is somewhat jargon-dense and misses a few common synonyms a user might say (e.g. 'code coverage', 'test coverage'). Not a 5 because synonym coverage is incomplete; not a 3 because the test-framework names and 'coverage' are exactly what users say.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Has a clear coverage.py-configuration niche with distinct triggers, but overlaps with closely related sibling skills it itself names (lcov-analysis, coverage-diff-reporter, test-coverage-targeter), creating minor conflict risk. Not a 5 because of that sibling overlap; not a 3 because the scope is distinctly the coverage.py config task.	4 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 3 missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Reviewed

19 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation