skill-coverage-audit
- Repo stars 3,406
- Author updated Live
- Author repo claude-octopus
- Domain
- Security
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 · community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @nyldn · no license declared
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Guided setup
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- Runtime requirements
- No special requirements
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Write / modify
- Shell exec
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools,默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: skill-coverage-audit
description: Trace codepaths in diffs, map against tests, auto-generate missing coverage — use before shippin…
category: security
runtime: no special runtime
---
# skill-coverage-audit output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Trace codepaths in diffs, map against tests, auto-generate missing coverage — use before shipping PRs Trace every codepath in a diff, map each path against existing tests, visualize coverage gaps, and auto-generate tests for uncovered paths. These hard limits prevent runaway analysis: Determine the diff scope. Use the most relevant source: runs entirely l….
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “Overview / Caps and Limits / Phase 1: Codepath Tracing” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “Trace codepaths in diffs, map against tests, auto-generate missing coverage — use before shipping PRs Trace every codepath in a diff, map each path against existing tests, visualize coverage gaps, and auto-generate tests for uncovered paths. These hard limits prevent runaway analysis: Determine the diff scope. Use the most relevant source: runs entirely l…”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “Overview / Caps and Limits / Phase 1: Codepath Tracing” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options. The source mentions slash commands such as `/octo`; use them first when your agent supports command triggers.
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, write/modify files, run shell commands.
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “Overview / Caps and Limits / Phase 1: Codepath Tracing”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: skill-coverage-audit
description: Trace codepaths in diffs, map against tests, auto-generate missing coverage — use before shippin…
category: security
source: nyldn/claude-octopus
---
# skill-coverage-audit
## When to use
- Trace codepaths in diffs, map against tests, auto-generate missing coverage — use before shipping PRs Trace every code…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “Overview / Caps and Limits / Phase 1: Codepath Tracing” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies. The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "skill-coverage-audit" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> Overview / Caps and Limits / Phase 1: Codepath Tracing
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> no special runtime | read files, write/modify files, run shell commands | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
} Host: Codex CLI — This skill was designed for Claude Code and adapted for Codex. Cross-reference commands use installed skill names in Codex rather than
/octo:*slash commands. Use the active Codex shell and subagent tools. Do not claim a provider, model, or host subagent is available until the current session exposes it. For host tool equivalents, seeskills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md.
Test Coverage Audit
Overview
Trace every codepath in a diff, map each path against existing tests, visualize coverage gaps, and auto-generate tests for uncovered paths.
Core principle: Trace codepaths in changed files -> Map against existing tests -> Score coverage quality -> Generate tests for gaps -> Report before/after counts.
Caps and Limits
These hard limits prevent runaway analysis:
- 30 code paths max per audit. If a diff yields more than 30, prioritize by complexity and risk (error paths, security-sensitive branches, public API surfaces first).
- 20 tests generated max per audit. Focus on highest-impact gaps first.
- 2-minute per-test exploration cap. If understanding a single test path takes longer than 2 minutes, mark it as "needs manual review" and move on.
Phase 1: Codepath Tracing
Step 1: Identify Changed Files
Determine the diff scope. Use the most relevant source:
# PR diff
git diff --name-only main...HEAD
# Staged changes
git diff --name-only --cached
# Last commit
git diff --name-only HEAD~1..HEAD
Filter to source code files only (exclude configs, docs, generated files).
Step 2: Trace Data Flow Through Every Branch
For each changed file, you MUST trace:
- Conditionals -- Every
if/else,switch/case, ternary, and pattern match. Each branch is a separate codepath. - Error paths -- Every
catch,throw, error return, validation failure, and early return with error. WHY: Error paths are the most common source of untested bugs. - Function calls -- Every function invoked from changed code. Trace one level deep into callees to identify integration boundaries.
- Loop boundaries -- Empty collection, single item, and multi-item paths through loops.
- Guard clauses -- Every early return, null check, and permission gate.
Step 3: Build the Codepath Inventory
Produce a structured inventory:
## Codepath Inventory: [filename]
| # | Path Description | Type | Risk |
|---|-----------------|------|------|
| 1 | validateUser() happy path | conditional | low |
| 2 | validateUser() missing email | error | medium |
| 3 | validateUser() invalid format | error | medium |
| 4 | processOrder() empty cart guard | guard | high |
| 5 | processOrder() payment timeout | error | high |
| 6 | processOrder() success | conditional | low |
Type categories: conditional, error, guard, loop-boundary, integration, async
Risk assessment: high = user-facing failure or data loss, medium = degraded behavior, low = cosmetic or logging
Phase 2: Test Mapping and Quality Scoring
Step 1: Search for Existing Tests
For each file in the diff, search the test directory for related tests:
# Find test files that reference the changed file or its exports
# Search by filename pattern
find tests/ -name "*[changed_file_stem]*" -type f
# Search by import/require of the changed module
grep -rl "import.*from.*[module_name]" tests/
grep -rl "require.*[module_name]" tests/
# Search by function name references
grep -rl "[function_name]" tests/
Step 2: Score Test Quality
For each codepath, assess existing test coverage with this rubric:
| Rating | Meaning | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| ★★★ | Behavior + edge cases tested | Tests assert behavior AND cover boundary conditions, error cases, and edge inputs |
| ★★ | Happy path tested | Tests cover the success path but miss error branches or edge cases |
| ★ | Smoke test only | Test exists but only checks the function runs without error (no meaningful assertions) |
| ☆ | No test found | No test references this codepath at all |
Step 3: Produce Coverage Map
Map each codepath to its test coverage:
## Coverage Map: [filename]
| # | Codepath | Test File | Rating | Notes |
|---|----------|-----------|--------|-------|
| 1 | validateUser() happy path | test-user.sh:42 | ★★★ | Asserts valid + invalid inputs |
| 2 | validateUser() missing email | test-user.sh:58 | ★★ | Tests missing, not malformed |
| 3 | validateUser() invalid format | -- | ☆ | No test for format validation |
| 4 | processOrder() empty cart guard | -- | ☆ | Guard clause untested |
| 5 | processOrder() payment timeout | test-orders.sh:30 | ★ | Checks no crash, no assertions |
| 6 | processOrder() success | test-orders.sh:15 | ★★★ | Full integration test |
Phase 3: Coverage Diagram
After completing the map, produce an ASCII coverage summary. This is the primary output artifact.
COVERAGE: 5/12 paths tested (42%)
Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
User flows: 2/7 (29%)
GAPS: 7 paths need tests
Break down by category:
BY TYPE:
conditional: 3/4 tested (75%) ████████░░
error: 1/5 tested (20%) ██░░░░░░░░
guard: 0/2 tested (0%) ░░░░░░░░░░
integration: 1/1 tested (100%) ██████████
BY RISK:
high: 1/3 tested (33%) ███░░░░░░░
medium: 2/5 tested (40%) ████░░░░░░
low: 2/4 tested (50%) █████░░░░░
Use full block for covered and light shade for uncovered. 10-character bar. Always show exact fractions and percentages.
Phase 4: Auto-Generate Tests
Step 1: Detect Project Test Conventions
Before generating any tests, you MUST detect the project's testing patterns:
**Detected Test Conventions:**
- Framework: [jest/vitest/pytest/bash/go test/etc.]
- Location: [tests/ | __tests__/ | src/**/*.test.* | etc.]
- Naming: [test-*.sh | *.test.ts | *_test.go | etc.]
- Style: [BDD describe/it | xUnit | TAP | custom]
- Helpers: [test-utils.ts | conftest.py | helpers/ | etc.]
- Assertion library: [built-in | chai | assert | etc.]
Step 2: Generate Tests for Uncovered Paths
For each no-test and smoke-only codepath, generate a test that:
- Follows project naming conventions -- same directory structure, same file naming pattern
- Uses existing test helpers -- import from the same test utilities the project already uses
- Tests behavior, not implementation -- assert observable outcomes, not internal state
- Covers the specific gap -- targets the exact branch or error path identified in Phase 1
- Includes edge cases -- aim for full coverage on each generated test
Step 3: Present Generated Tests
For each generated test, show:
### Generated: test for [codepath description]
**Covers:** Codepath #N from [filename]
**Raises coverage:** from no-test to full coverage
[test code block]
Step 4: Report Before/After
After generating all tests, show the coverage change:
BEFORE: 5/12 paths tested (42%)
AFTER: 11/12 paths tested (92%)
New tests generated: 6
Remaining gaps: 1 (manual review needed)
Integration with Other Skills
With flow-deliver / skill-code-review
Coverage audit runs as a complement to code review. When invoked during deliver phase:
- Code review assesses quality and correctness
- Coverage audit assesses test completeness
- Both feed into the ship/no-ship decision
With skill-tdd
If coverage audit finds gaps in new code, recommend the user adopt TDD for the next iteration. Coverage audit fixes existing gaps; TDD prevents future ones.
With skill-verification-gate
After generating tests, use skill-verification-gate to run the test suite and confirm the new tests pass.
Red Flags -- Do Not Do This
| Action | Why It Is Wrong |
|---|---|
| Count lines instead of paths | Line coverage misses branch coverage entirely |
| Generate tests without checking conventions | Tests that do not match project style will be rejected |
| Test implementation details | Brittle tests that break on refactoring |
| Skip error paths | Error paths are where most bugs live |
| Exceed the 30-path cap | Analysis becomes unfocused and slow |
| Generate more than 20 tests | Diminishing returns; focus on highest impact |
| Spend more than 2 min on one path | Mark as needs-manual-review and move on |
Quick Reference
1. TRACE -> Identify all codepaths in the diff (max 30)
2. MAP -> Find existing tests for each path
3. SCORE -> Rate coverage quality (no-test / smoke / happy-path / full)
4. DIAGRAM -> ASCII coverage visualization
5. GENERATE -> Auto-create tests for gaps (max 20)
6. REPORT -> Before/after test counts
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review