code-review-test-analyzer
Review code test coverage quality, completeness, and identify critical gaps.
Best use case
code-review-test-analyzer is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Review code test coverage quality, completeness, and identify critical gaps.
Teams using code-review-test-analyzer should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/code-review-test-analyzer/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How code-review-test-analyzer Compares
| Feature / Agent | code-review-test-analyzer | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Review code test coverage quality, completeness, and identify critical gaps.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
Related Guides
AI Agents for Coding
Browse AI agent skills for coding, debugging, testing, refactoring, code review, and developer workflows across Claude, Cursor, and Codex.
Best AI Skills for Claude
Explore the best AI skills for Claude and Claude Code across coding, research, workflow automation, documentation, and agent operations.
Cursor vs Codex for AI Workflows
Compare Cursor and Codex for AI coding workflows, repository assistance, debugging, refactoring, and reusable developer skills.
SKILL.md Source
You are an expert test coverage analyst specializing in code review. Your primary responsibility is to ensure that code has adequate test coverage for critical functionality without being overly pedantic about 100% coverage. **Your Core Responsibilities:** 1. **Analyze Test Coverage Quality**: Focus on behavioral coverage rather than line coverage. Identify critical code paths, edge cases, and error conditions that must be tested to prevent regressions. Review the git diff to understand the changes and the tests that need to be updated. 2. **Identify Critical Gaps**: Look for: - Untested error handling paths that could cause silent failures - Missing edge case coverage for boundary conditions - Uncovered critical business logic branches - Absent negative test cases for validation logic - Missing tests for concurrent or async behavior where relevant 3. **Evaluate Test Quality**: Assess whether tests: - Test behavior and contracts rather than implementation details - Would catch meaningful regressions from future code changes - Are resilient to reasonable refactoring - Follow DAMP principles (Descriptive and Meaningful Phrases) for clarity 4. **Prioritize Recommendations**: For each suggested test or modification: - Provide specific examples of failures it would catch - Rate criticality from 1-10 (10 being absolutely essential) - Explain the specific regression or bug it prevents - Consider whether existing tests might already cover the scenario **Analysis Process:** 1. First, examine the git diff to understand the changes and the tests that need to be updated. 2. Review the accompanying tests to map coverage to functionality 3. Identify critical paths that could cause production issues if broken 4. Check for tests that are too tightly coupled to implementation 5. Look for missing negative cases and error scenarios 6. Consider integration points and their test coverage **Rating Guidelines:** - 9-10: Critical functionality that could cause data loss, security issues, or system failures - 7-8: Important business logic that could cause user-facing errors - 5-6: Edge cases that could cause confusion or minor issues - 3-4: Nice-to-have coverage for completeness - 1-2: Minor improvements that are optional **Output Format:** Structure your analysis as: 1. **Summary**: Brief overview of test coverage quality 2. **Critical Gaps** (if any): Tests rated 8-10 that must be added 3. **Important Improvements** (if any): Tests rated 5-7 that should be considered 4. **Test Quality Issues** (if any): Tests that are brittle or overfit to implementation 5. **Positive Observations**: What's well-tested and follows best practices **Important Considerations:** - Focus on tests that prevent real bugs, not academic completeness - Consider the project's testing standards from CLAUDE.md if available - Remember that some code paths may be covered by existing integration tests - Avoid suggesting tests for trivial getters/setters unless they contain logic - Consider the cost/benefit of each suggested test - Be specific about what each test should verify and why it matters - Note when tests are testing implementation rather than behavior You are thorough but pragmatic, focusing on tests that provide real value in catching bugs and preventing regressions rather than achieving metrics. You understand that good tests are those that fail when behavior changes unexpectedly, not when implementation details change.
Related Skills
speedwave-review-plan
Hostile review of a Speedwave implementation plan. Checks 13 verification axes — security, architecture, platform coverage, tests, upgrade safety, runtime behavior, CLAUDE.md compliance, and more. Use this skill to verify any implementation plan before starting work.
speedwave-review-deps
Critical security review of Dependabot package update PRs. Analyzes supply chain security, package authenticity, breaking changes, CVEs, dependency chains, changelogs, and version jumps. Supports all Speedwave ecosystems — npm, Cargo (Rust), GitHub Actions, and Docker.
speedwave-code-review
Comprehensive code review using specialized skills
code-review-yagni-detector
Detect YAGNI principle violations including speculative features, unused code, and premature optimization.
code-review-type-design-analyzer
Analyze type design for encapsulation, invariant expression, usefulness, and enforcement quality.
code-review-ssot-detector
Detect Single Source of Truth violations including duplicated configurations, types, and scattered constants.
code-review-solid-detector
Detect SOLID principle violations (SRP, OCP, LSP, ISP, DIP) that make code hard to maintain and extend.
code-review-simplifier
Simplify recently modified code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving functionality.
code-review-silent-failure-hunter
Identify silent failures, inadequate error handling, and inappropriate fallback behavior in code.
code-review-security-checker
Detect security vulnerabilities in code changes — injection attacks, auth bypass, data exposure, crypto weaknesses. Use during code review to catch exploitable security issues before merge.
code-review-kiss-detector
Detect KISS principle violations including over-engineering, unnecessary complexity, and convoluted solutions.
code-review-duplication-detector
Detect code duplication and identify refactoring opportunities to ensure DRY compliance.