CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

testland/test-coverage-targeter

Use when a team can write only a handful of new tests and must pick which uncovered code matters most, or when some modules lose coverage while the total looks fine. Ranks uncovered branches in the diff by complexity, churn and test cost, and tracks per-file coverage drift.

Quality

78%

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

63%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-sequenced, largely actionable skill with concrete commands and a clear scoring methodology, weakened by monolithic structure (no bundle files despite ~350 lines of content), repeated external quotations, and pseudocode dependencies on undefined helpers and an unshipped script. The two lowest dimensions, conciseness and progressive disclosure, share a root cause: material that should be offloaded to reference files is duplicated inline.

Suggestions

Split the coverage debt ledger, the per-format parsing details (Step 2), and the References quotations into one-level-deep reference files (e.g. references/debt-ledger.md, references/parsers.md), leaving SKILL.md as a lean overview with well-signaled pointers.

De-duplicate the external quotations: the test-pyramid and McCabe quotes each appear twice in the body and again in References — cite them once where they justify a design decision.

Either ship scripts/coverage_targets.py (the CI snippet depends on it) or replace the invocation with the inline commands it would wrap, and define or inline the normalize/mccabe_complexity/git_churn helpers so the scoring code is executable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and skill-specific, but the external quotes (test pyramid, McCabe thresholds) appear twice in the body and again verbatim in References, and the ~30-line rendered example plus the long anti-pattern table add padding. Mostly efficient, but noticeably more trimming available than the 'minor instances' of anchor 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete executable commands (radon, complexity-report, git churn, CI YAML) and explicit scoring weights with formulas. Not a 5 because risk_weight calls undefined helpers (mccabe_complexity, normalize, git_churn) and the CI snippet runs scripts/coverage_targets.py, which is not shipped in the bundle.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-8 are clearly sequenced with preconditions flagged (fetch-depth: 0 for churn history, skipping pragma-ignore lines). The workflow is advisory/read-only so the destructive-batch cap does not apply, but explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., verifying parser output) are absent, keeping it below anchor 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

There is no bundle at all (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories), so the entire ~350-line payload is inlined in SKILL.md. Section headers are well-organized, but the debt-ledger section, per-format parsing details, and reference material clearly belong in separate one-level-deep files, matching anchor 3.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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 description with an explicit 'Use when...' clause covering two concrete trigger scenarios and a precise statement of what the skill does. Keyword coverage is good though a few natural variations are absent, and the niche is distinct with only minor overlap risk against sibling coverage skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — 'Ranks uncovered branches in the diff by complexity, churn and test cost' and 'tracks per-file coverage drift' — but stops short of comprehensive coverage (parser formats, CI posting, and the debt ledger are unstated).

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: 'Use when a team can write only a handful of new tests and must pick which uncovered code matters most, or when some modules lose coverage while the total looks fine' gives concrete triggers, and the ranking/tracking sentence states what it does. Anchor 4 would require a weaker 'when', which is not the case here.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'a handful of new tests', 'uncovered code', and 'modules lose coverage while the total looks fine' match how users would phrase the need. A few common variations ('test debt', 'coverage report', specific coverage percentages) are missing, keeping it below comprehensive synonym coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — prioritizing which uncovered code to test — with triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Minor overlap risk remains with generic test-writing and coverage-reporting sibling skills.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

On this page