lmiranda
2d51df7a42
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>
2.5 KiB
2.5 KiB
name, description
| name | description |
|---|---|
| test coverage | 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
-
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
- Look for existing coverage reports:
-
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)
-
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)
- Score each gap by:
-
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%