feat(marketplace): command consolidation + 8 new plugins (v8.1.0 → v9.0.0) [BREAKING]

Phase 1b: Rename all ~94 commands across 12 plugins to /<noun> <action>
sub-command pattern. Git-flow consolidated from 8→5 commands (commit
variants absorbed into --push/--merge/--sync flags). Dispatch files,
name: frontmatter, and cross-reference updates for all plugins.

Phase 2: Design documents for 8 new plugins in docs/designs/.

Phase 3: Scaffold 8 new plugins — saas-api-platform, saas-db-migrate,
saas-react-platform, saas-test-pilot, data-seed, ops-release-manager,
ops-deploy-pipeline, debug-mcp. Each with plugin.json, commands, agents,
skills, README, and claude-md-integration. Marketplace grows from 12→20.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

plugins/saas-test-pilot/commands/test-coverage.md

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+---
+name: test coverage
+description: Analyze test coverage, identify untested paths, and prioritize gaps by risk
+---
+
+# /test coverage
+
+Analyze test coverage and identify gaps prioritized by risk.
+
+## Visual Output
+
+```
++----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+|  TEST-PILOT - Coverage Analysis                                       |
++----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+```
+
+## Usage
+
+```
+/test coverage [<target>] [--threshold=80] [--format=summary|detailed]
+```
+
+**Target:** File, directory, or module to analyze (defaults to entire project)
+**Threshold:** Minimum acceptable coverage percentage
+**Format:** Output detail level
+
+## Skills to Load
+
+- skills/coverage-analysis.md
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Discover Coverage Data**
+   - Look for existing coverage reports: `.coverage`, `coverage.xml`, `lcov.info`, `coverage/`
+   - If no report exists, attempt to run coverage: `pytest --cov`, `npx vitest --coverage`
+   - Parse coverage data into structured format
+
+2. **Analyze Gaps**
+   - Identify uncovered lines, branches, and functions
+   - Classify gaps by type:
+     - Error handling paths (catch/except blocks)
+     - Conditional branches (if/else, switch/case)
+     - Edge case logic (boundary checks, null guards)
+     - Integration points (API calls, database queries)
+
+3. **Risk Assessment**
+   - Score each gap by:
+     - Complexity of uncovered code (cyclomatic complexity)
+     - Criticality of the module (auth, payments, data persistence)
+     - Frequency of changes (git log analysis)
+     - Proximity to user input (trust boundary distance)
+
+4. **Generate Report**
+   - Overall coverage metrics
+   - Per-file breakdown
+   - Prioritized gap list with risk scores
+   - Suggested test cases for top gaps
+
+## Output Format
+
+```
+## Coverage Report
+
+### Overall: 74% lines | 61% branches
+
+### Files Below Threshold (80%)
+| File | Lines | Branches | Risk |
+|------|-------|----------|------|
+| src/auth/login.py | 52% | 38% | HIGH |
+| src/api/handlers.py | 67% | 55% | MEDIUM |
+
+### Top 5 Coverage Gaps (by risk)
+1. **src/auth/login.py:45-62** — OAuth error handling
+   Risk: HIGH | Uncovered: 18 lines | Suggestion: test invalid token flow
+2. **src/api/handlers.py:89-104** — Rate limit branch
+   Risk: MEDIUM | Uncovered: 16 lines | Suggestion: test 429 response
+
+### Recommendations
+- Focus on auth module — highest risk, lowest coverage
+- Add branch coverage to CI threshold
+- 12 new test cases would bring coverage to 85%
+```