Coverage Review

Coverage Review

Analyse the project's test coverage, identify gaps, and present an assessment for the user to review before any changes are made. Do not write or modify any code until the user provides next steps.

Files and instructions: $ARGUMENTS

What to detect

Before running anything, determine the test framework, runner, and coverage tooling by inspecting the project:

• JavaScript/TypeScript: jest --coverage, vitest --coverage, c8, nyc/istanbul — check package.json scripts, config files, and dev dependencies for coverage providers (@vitest/coverage-v8, @vitest/coverage-istanbul, c8, nyc)
• Python: pytest --cov, coverage.py — check pyproject.toml, setup.cfg, .coveragerc
• Go: go test -cover, go test -coverprofile — built-in
• Rust: cargo tarpaulin, cargo llvm-cov — check Cargo.toml dev-dependencies
• Java/Kotlin: jacoco, cobertura — check pom.xml or build.gradle plugins
• Ruby: simplecov — check Gemfile
• Elixir: mix test --cover, excoveralls — check mix.exs
• PHP: phpunit --coverage-text — check phpunit.xml, composer.json

If no coverage tool is installed, recommend one appropriate for the detected framework and ask the user before installing it.

How to interpret arguments

The arguments are free-form and flexible. They may contain:

• File or directory references to scope the analysis: src/services/, @auth.ts, lib/, *.py
• Natural language instructions such as:
• "focus on the API layer"
• "only check the utils module"
• "ignore generated files"
• "include integration tests"

When no arguments are provided, analyse coverage for the entire project.

Examples

• /coverage-review — full project coverage analysis
• /coverage-review src/services/ — coverage for a specific directory
• /coverage-review @auth.ts — coverage for a specific file
• /coverage-review focus on the API handlers — scoped by description
• /coverage-review ignore generated files and vendor/ — with exclusions

How to proceed

1. Detect the framework and coverage tool: read package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, go.mod, or equivalent to identify available coverage tooling and its configuration
2. Determine scope: if the user specified files or directories, limit the analysis to those. Otherwise analyse the full project
3. Run the coverage report: execute the appropriate coverage command with text/summary output. Use flags that produce per-file and per-function breakdowns where available. Set a reasonable timeout (default 120s, extend for large suites)
4. Parse the results: extract file-level and function-level coverage data. Identify:

• Uncovered files — source files with no corresponding tests at all
• Low-coverage files — files below 50% line coverage
• Uncovered functions/methods — specific functions with 0% coverage
• Uncovered branches — conditional paths that are never exercised

1. Read the uncovered code: for each significant gap, read the source file to understand what the uncovered code does. Categorise each gap by risk and complexity:

• Risk: how likely is a bug in this code to cause user-facing impact? (high / medium / low)
• Complexity: how complex would the tests be to write? (simple / moderate / complex)

1. Present the assessment: report findings using the output format below. Stop here and wait for the user's instructions before writing any code.

Output format

Coverage assessment

## Coverage Assessment

**Framework**: vitest + @vitest/coverage-v8
**Scope**: full project (or scoped description)
**Overall line coverage**: 64% (target: 80%)

---

### Summary

| Category            | Count |
|---------------------|-------|
| Uncovered files     | 4     |
| Low-coverage files  | 6     |
| Uncovered functions | 12    |

---

### Uncovered files (no tests)

| File                          | Lines | Risk   | Complexity | What it does                          |
|-------------------------------|-------|--------|------------|---------------------------------------|
| `src/services/billing.ts`     | 142   | high   | moderate   | Stripe billing lifecycle management   |
| `src/utils/retry.ts`          | 38    | medium | simple     | Generic retry with exponential backoff|

### Low-coverage files (below 50%)

| File                          | Coverage | Uncovered functions              | Risk   | Complexity |
|-------------------------------|----------|----------------------------------|--------|------------|
| `src/handlers/auth.ts`        | 32%      | `refreshToken`, `revokeSession`  | high   | moderate   |
| `src/repos/order.ts`          | 45%      | `bulkUpdate`, `archiveOld`       | medium | complex    |

### Key uncovered branches

| Location                          | Branch description                       | Risk   |
|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------|
| `src/services/user.ts:52-58`      | Error path when email already exists     | high   |
| `src/handlers/auth.ts:91-95`      | Token expiry edge case                   | medium |

---

### Recommended priority

1. **`src/services/billing.ts`** — high risk, no tests at all, moderate complexity
2. **`src/handlers/auth.ts` → `refreshToken`, `revokeSession`** — high risk, auth-critical paths
3. **`src/services/user.ts:52-58`** — high risk branch, simple to cover
4. ...

---

What would you like to cover? You can point at specific files, pick from the priorities above, or ask me to cover everything.

Cannot determine coverage tool

## Coverage Assessment: UNKNOWN

Could not detect a coverage tool. Looked for: jest/vitest coverage config, pytest-cov, coverage.py, go test -cover, cargo tarpaulin, jacoco, simplecov.

Recommended tool for this project: **[recommendation based on detected test framework]**

Would you like me to install and configure it?

No gaps found

## Coverage Assessment: COMPLETE

**Overall line coverage**: 94%

All files are above 80% coverage. No significant uncovered functions or branches detected.

Minor gaps (cosmetic):
- `src/config/defaults.ts:12` — unreachable fallback branch
- `src/index.ts:3-5` — top-level bootstrap (not practically testable)

Important notes

• Do not write tests or modify code — this skill produces an assessment only. Wait for the user to decide what to cover and how
• Never run tests in watch mode — it requires interactive input
• Timeout handling — if a coverage collection exceeds the timeout, report what is completed and that the run was interrupted
• Respect existing configuration — use the project's existing coverage config (thresholds, exclusions, reporters) rather than overriding with custom flags
• Large projects — if the project has hundreds of source files, focus the detailed analysis on the user-specified scope or the top 15 lowest-coverage files to keep the report actionable

Source & license

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

• Author: eugeniosegala
• Source: eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseur
• License: MIT

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