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>
84 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
84 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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%
|
|
```
|