AC coverage-analysis
Measure and improve test coverage meaningfully. Covers Istanbul/V8/coverage.py configuration, coverage gap analysis by risk, coverage-as-ratchet in CI (never let it decrease), PR coverage diff checks, mutation testing for assertion quality, and distinguishing meaningful from vanity coverage. Use when: "code coverage," "coverage gap," "Istanbul," "coverage threshold," "coverage report," "branch coverage." Not for: writing the tests that raise coverage — use unit-testing; coverage as a tracked KPI trend over time — use qa-metrics. Related: unit-testing, ci-cd-integration, qa-metrics, ai-qa-review.
Measure and improve test coverage meaningfully.
As a process C 56/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 4. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 58, 71, 152): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 56/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 14 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4508 tokens
- 100Steps. 32 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 13 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (3 tags): a typed call is more reliable
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 6 example trigger phrases
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 602: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 31 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 32 items
- +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 98.