AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Osx Review Test Compliance

skill-amauryconstant-openspec-extended-osx-review-test-compliance · by amauryconstant

Analyze spec-to-test alignment for OpenSpec changes. Use after implementation to identify test gaps, verify coverage of spec requirements, or understand test/spec alignment. Performs semantic matching between spec scenarios and test implementations.

No reviews yet
0 installs
26 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-amauryconstant-openspec-extended-osx-review-test-compliance

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-amauryconstant-openspec-extended-osx-review-test-compliance)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
3mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Osx Review Test Compliance? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Analyze spec-to-test alignment to identify missing test coverage for OpenSpec changes.

IMPORTANT: This is a semantic analysis skill, not a CLI tool. You will read spec files, discover test files, and analyze coverage by comparing scenarios to test implementations.


Input

Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, the skill will infer from context or prompt for selection.

Arguments: [change-name]

Examples:

  • /osx-test-compliance add-auth - Analyze test coverage for "add-auth"
  • "Check test coverage" - Infer change from context

When to Use

| Timing | Use Case | |--------|----------| | After apply-change | Deep test coverage analysis when implementation is done | | Before verify-change | Get detailed test gaps before general verification | | During code review | Check spec/test alignment for PRs | | Periodic maintenance | Audit test coverage quality over time |


Steps

  1. Select the change

If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:

  • Infer from conversation context
  • Auto-select if only one active change exists
  • If ambiguous: run openspec list --json to get available changes and prompt the user to select

Always announce: "Analyzing test compliance for: "

  1. Check change status

``bash openspec status --change "" --json ``

Parse the JSON to identify the change directory path.

  1. Read spec files

Read all spec files from openspec/changes//specs/:

Use the Glob tool to find spec files: ``bash openspec/changes//specs/**/*.md ``

For each spec file, extract:

  • Requirement names: Lines matching ### Requirement:
  • Scenario names: Lines matching #### Scenario:
  • Scenario content: GIVEN/WHEN/THEN/AND clauses following each scenario
  1. Discover test files

Use the Glob tool to find test files. Start with common patterns:

| Language | Pattern | |----------|---------| | Go | **/*_test.go | | Python | **/test_*.py, **/*_test.py | | JavaScript/TypeScript | **/*.test.{js,ts,jsx,tsx}, **/*.spec.{js,ts,jsx,tsx} | | Java | **/*Test.java | | Ruby | **/*_spec.rb |

If openspec/config.yaml exists, check the context field for project-specific test patterns.

  1. Extract test behaviors

For each test file, read its contents and extract:

  • Test function names: e.g., TestLoginFlow, test_user_authentication
  • Assertion patterns: Look for assert, expect, should, t.Error
  • Test descriptions: Describe blocks, docstrings, comments

Identify what behavior each test validates based on its name and assertions.

  1. Match scenarios to tests

For each spec scenario, find matching tests by comparing:

Semantic similarity factors:

  • Action alignment: Does the test name/description contain verbs from the scenario? (e.g., "submits", "validates", "returns")
  • Entity overlap: Do both reference the same domain objects? (e.g., "token", "credentials", "user")
  • Outcome correspondence: Does the test verify the expected outcome?

Confidence levels:

| Score | Match Quality | Interpretation | |--------|---------------|----------------| | High (80%+) | Strong match | Scenario clearly covered | | Medium (50-79%) | Partial match | Some coverage, gaps noted | | Low (

Summary

  • Total requirements: 5
  • Total scenarios: 12
  • Scenarios with tests: 9
  • Scenarios without tests: 3
  • Orphaned tests: 2

Coverage by Requirement

Requirement: User Authentication

| Scenario | Coverage | Matching Tests | Notes | |----------|----------|----------------|-------| | Valid credentials | High (85%) | TestLoginFlow | Happy path covered | | Invalid credentials | None | — | Missing: add negative test | | Token expiry | Partial (60%) | TestTokenRefresh | Missing: expired token handling |

Requirement: Session Management

| Scenario | Coverage | Matching Tests | Notes | |----------|----------|----------------|-------| | Session timeout | None | — | No test for timeout | | Concurrent sessions | High (90%) | TestConcurrentLogin | Covered |

Gaps Analysis

| Gap Type | Count | Examples | |----------|-------|----------| | Untested scenarios | 3 | "Invalid credentials", "Token expiry", "Session timeout" | | Partially covered | 2 | Token refresh missing expired token case | | Orphaned tests | 2 | TestHelperFunction, TestLoadFixture |

Recommendations

  1. Add test TestInvalidCredentials() to cover negative auth case
  2. Add test TestExpiredToken() to cover token expiry scenario
  3. Add test TestSessionTimeout() to cover session timeout
  4. Document orphaned tests TestHelperFunction as utility functions

Next Steps

  • Address gaps: Add recommended tests
  • Re-run compliance: /osx-test-compliance
  • Verify implementation: /osx-verify

**Quick Summary** (for clean changes):

```markdown
## Test Compliance: 

✅ **All scenarios covered**

- 5 requirements, 12 scenarios
- All scenarios have corresponding tests
- 0 coverage gaps

Ready to verify: `/osx-verify `

Matching Heuristics

Use these patterns when analyzing test-to-spec correspondence:

Strong indicators of coverage:

  • Test name contains scenario name keywords
  • Test asserts the exact outcome specified in THEN clause
  • Test sets up the exact GIVEN conditions

Partial coverage indicators:

  • Test covers happy path but not error cases
  • Test validates subset of scenario conditions
  • Test has similar name but different scope

No coverage indicators:

  • No test names match scenario keywords
  • No assertions for expected outcomes
  • Scenario describes feature not in test suite

Guardrails

  • Read actual test files - don't assume coverage from names alone
  • Report gaps, not just percentages - focus on what's missing
  • Acknowledge utility tests that don't map to scenarios (orphaned tests)
  • Consider partial coverage valid for complex scenarios
  • Don't require 100% coverage - focus on critical path scenarios
  • Confidence scores are subjective - explain reasoning
  • If no tests exist, report that clearly rather than failing

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.