CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/test-coverage-targeter

Builds a "what to test next" recommendation by combining a coverage report (LCOV / Cobertura / coverage.py JSON / Jest JSON / JaCoCo XML) with the PR's `git diff`, ranking uncovered branches by risk × cost - risk weighted by McCabe cyclomatic complexity and code-churn frequency, cost weighted by the unit-test pyramid layer (unit tests cheaper than integration than E2E). Also carries the coverage debt ledger: a weekly per-file drift report over N historical main runs flagging `falling` (line% slid >M pp from peak), `stale` (flat coverage + high churn), and `orphan` (lost last covering test) files, whose rows feed the same targeting. Emits a prioritized list with concrete file:line targets and the test layer recommended for each. Use when a team has the budget to write 5 - 10 new tests and needs help picking which uncovered code to target first instead of blindly chasing 100% coverage, or when specific modules are eroding silently while whole-repo coverage looks fine.

76

Quality

96%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Medium

Suggest reviewing before use

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

75%Weight 0%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 multi-step skill with concrete code and a clearly sequenced workflow plus a thoughtful anti-patterns and limitations section. Main weaknesses are minor over-explanation, undefined Python helper stubs, and no real bundle/reference files to offload detail into.

Suggestions

Define or drop the stubbed Python helpers (normalize, mccabe_complexity, git_churn) so the risk_weight and scoring code is copy-paste runnable, or explicitly mark them as illustrative.

Trim the quoted McCabe threshold block and the repeated test-pyramid rationale to one-line pointers to the linked references, preserving the weighting justification without the verbosity.

Move the coverage debt ledger mechanics into a short reference file (e.g. references/debt-ledger.md) and link to it from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure now that no bundle files exist.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient with concrete code, tables, and anti-patterns, but includes some over-explanation (quoted McCabe threshold conventions and repeated test-pyramid rationale) that could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides mostly executable guidance — real bash commands (radon cc, git log), CI YAML, and a render template — but the Python helpers (normalize, mccabe_complexity, git_churn) are undefined stubs, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Eight clearly numbered steps with an explicit advisory-not-gating design checkpoint; the skill is non-destructive so the missing-validation cap does not apply, though no explicit verify-report-parsed checkpoint is present.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Single well-organized SKILL.md with clear sections and steps, and one-level-deep references to external sibling skills and URLs; no bundle files exist, and the inline debt-ledger section is fairly substantial but core to the skill.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

88%Weight 0%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 highly specific, well-triggered description that clearly states both capabilities and use conditions, anchored by concrete file:line outputs and a defined 'Use when' clause. Slightly technical-leaning in its keywords and has minor overlap with adjacent coverage skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Builds a what to test next recommendation', 'ranking uncovered branches by risk × cost', 'carries the coverage debt ledger', 'Emits a prioritized list with concrete file:line targets' — with comprehensive coverage of the skill's behavior.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (builds ranking, carries debt ledger, emits prioritized targets) and when ('Use when a team has the budget to write 5 - 10 new tests… or when specific modules are eroding silently while whole-repo coverage looks fine') with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage including natural phrases ('coverage report', 'what to test next', '100% coverage', 'modules eroding', 'whole-repo coverage') and format synonyms (LCOV/Cobertura/Jest/JaCoCo), though it leans technical and a few natural user phrasings are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (risk×cost coverage targeting plus a drift ledger) with distinct triggers, but acknowledges a sibling reporter and multiple upstream parser skills, leaving minor overlap risk with closely related skills.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

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