Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Advanced coverage analysis with actionable insights. Use to identify coverage gaps, suggest specific tests, track coverage trends, and highlight critical uncovered code. Essential for reaching 80%+ coverage target.
.claude/skills/aiskillstore-coverage-analyzer/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 198% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 158% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 149% | 0% |
| case-13 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 145% | 0% |
| case-14 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 208% | 0% |
BEFORE starting coverage analysis, you MUST read and understand the following project documentation:
After reading these files, proceed with your coverage analysis task below.
Provide advanced test coverage analysis with actionable insights for improving coverage to meet the 80%+ requirement.
make coverage to understand gaps✅ Detailed Coverage Analysis
✅ Actionable Recommendations
✅ Coverage Gaps Identification
✅ Test Suggestions
✅ Trend Tracking
bash# Generate detailed coverage analysis analyze test coverage
Output: Comprehensive report with gaps and recommendations
bash# Focus on critical uncovered code show critical coverage gaps
Output: High-priority uncovered code (error handling, security, edge cases)
bash# Get specific test recommendations suggest tests for uncovered code in src/python_modern_template/validators.py
Output: Concrete test cases to add
bash# See coverage over time show coverage trend for last month
Output: Graph showing coverage changes
bash# Generate coverage report make coverage
This creates:
htmlcov/.coverage data fileRead coverage data from multiple sources:
bash# Read terminal output for overall stats # Read htmlcov/index.html for detailed breakdown # Parse .coverage file for line-by-line data
For each source file:
For each uncovered section:
Create specific test suggestions:
CRITICAL - Must cover immediately:
HIGH - Should cover soon:
MEDIUM - Good to cover:
LOW - Optional:
markdown# Test Coverage Analysis ## Executive Summary **Current Coverage:** 75.3% **Target:** 80%+ **Gap:** 4.7% (23 uncovered lines) **Status:** ⚠️ Below target **Breakdown:** - src/python_modern_template/: 73.2% (18 uncovered lines) - tests/: 100% (fully covered) --- ## Critical Gaps (MUST FIX) ### 1. Error Handling in validators.py ⚠️ CRITICAL **File:** src/python_modern_template/validators.py **Lines:** 45-52 (8 lines) **Function:** `validate_email()` **Uncovered Code:**
45: except ValueError as e: 46: logger.error(f"Email validation failed: {e}") 47: raise ValidationError( 48: "Invalid email format" 49: ) from e 50: except Exception: 51: logger.critical("Unexpected validation error") 52: return False
**Why Critical:** Error handling paths are not tested, could hide bugs
**Recommended Test:**def test_validate_email_value_error_handling() -> None: """Test email validation handles ValueError correctly.""" # Arrange invalid_email = "not-an-email"
# Act & Assert with pytest.raises(ValidationError) as exc_info: validate_email(invalid_email)
assert "Invalid email format" in str(exc_info.value) assert exc_info.value.__cause__ is not None
def test_validate_email_unexpected_error_handling() -> None: """Test email validation handles unexpected errors.""" # Arrange # Mock to raise unexpected exception with patch('validators.EMAIL_REGEX.match', side_effect=RuntimeError("Unexpected")): # Act result = validate_email("test@example.com")
# Assert assert result is False
**Impact:** Covers 8 lines, adds 3.5% coverage
---
### 2. Edge Case in parser.py ⚠️ CRITICAL
**File:** src/python_modern_template/parser.py
**Lines:** 67-70 (4 lines)
**Function:** `parse_config()`
**Uncovered Code:**67: if not config_data: 68: logger.warning("Empty configuration provided") 69: return DEFAULT_CONFIG 70: # Unreachable line removed
**Why Critical:** Edge case handling not tested
**Recommended Test:**def test_parse_config_empty_data() -> None: """Test parser handles empty configuration.""" # Arrange empty_config = {}
# Act result = parse_config(empty_config)
# Assert assert result == DEFAULT_CONFIG
def test_parse_config_none_data() -> None: """Test parser handles None configuration.""" # Arrange # Act result = parse_config(None)
# Assert assert result == DEFAULT_CONFIG
**Impact:** Covers 4 lines, adds 1.7% coverage
---
## High Priority Gaps
### 3. Integration Point in api_client.py
**File:** src/python_modern_template/api_client.py
**Lines:** 112-118 (7 lines)
**Function:** `retry_with_backoff()`
**Uncovered Code:**112: @retry(max_attempts=3, backoff=2.0) 113: def retry_with_backoff(self, operation: Callable) -> Any: 114: """Retry operation with exponential backoff.""" 115: try: 116: return operation() 117: except ConnectionError: 118: logger.warning("Connection failed, retrying...")
**Why High:** Integration logic with retry mechanism
**Recommended Test:**@pytest.mark.parametrize("attempt,should_succeed", (1, True), # Succeeds first try (2, True), # Succeeds second try (3, True), # Succeeds third try (4, False), # Fails after max attempts ]) def test_retry_with_backoff(attempt: int, should_succeed: bool) -> None: """Test retry mechanism with various scenarios.""" # Arrange client = APIClient() call_count = 0
def flaky_operation(): nonlocal call_count call_count += 1 if call_count < attempt: raise ConnectionError("Connection failed") return "success"
# Act & Assert if should_succeed: result = client.retry_with_backoff(flaky_operation) assert result == "success" assert call_count == attempt else: with pytest.raises(ConnectionError): client.retry_with_backoff(flaky_operation)
**Impact:** Covers 7 lines, adds 3.0% coverage
---
## Coverage By Module
| Module | Coverage | Uncovered Lines | Priority |
|--------|----------|----------------|----------|
| validators.py | 65% | 12 | CRITICAL |
| parser.py | 80% | 4 | HIGH |
| api_client.py | 75% | 7 | HIGH |
| utils.py | 95% | 1 | LOW |
**Total:** 75.3% (23 uncovered lines)
---
## Quick Win Recommendations
These tests would quickly boost coverage:
1. **Add error handling tests** (validators.py)
- +3.5% coverage
- 10 minutes to write
2. **Add edge case tests** (parser.py)
- +1.7% coverage
- 5 minutes to write
3. **Add integration tests** (api_client.py)
- +3.0% coverage
- 15 minutes to write
**Total Impact:** +8.2% coverage (reaching 83.5%)
**Total Time:** ~30 minutes
---
## Coverage Trend
Week 1: 70% ███████░░░ Week 2: 72% ███████▓░░ Week 3: 75% ████████░░ Week 4: 75% ████████░░ ← Current (stalled)
Target: 80% ████████▓░
**Trend:** +5% over 3 weeks, then stalled
**Recommendation:** Focus on quick wins above to break through 80%
---
## Detailed File Analysis
### src/python_modern_template/validators.py (65% coverage)
**Covered:**
- Basic email validation (happy path)
- URL validation (happy path)
- Phone number validation
**Not Covered:**
- Error handling (lines 45-52)
- Edge cases (empty strings, None)
- Invalid format handling
**Missing Test Types:**
- Parametrized tests for invalid inputs
- Exception handling tests
- Edge case tests
### src/python_modern_template/parser.py (80% coverage)
**Covered:**
- Standard config parsing
- Type conversion
- Default value handling
**Not Covered:**
- Empty config handling (lines 67-70)
**Missing Test Types:**
- Edge case tests (empty, None)
### src/python_modern_template/api_client.py (75% coverage)
**Covered:**
- Basic API calls
- Authentication
- Response parsing
**Not Covered:**
- Retry logic (lines 112-118)
- Connection error handling
- Backoff mechanism
**Missing Test Types:**
- Integration tests with retries
- Failure scenario tests
---
## Next Steps
### Immediate Actions (30 minutes)
1. **Add error handling tests to validators.py**
```bash
# Edit tests/test_validators.py
# Add test_validate_email_value_error_handling()
# Add test_validate_email_unexpected_error_handling()
```
2. **Add edge case tests to parser.py**
```bash
# Edit tests/test_parser.py
# Add test_parse_config_empty_data()
# Add test_parse_config_none_data()
```
3. **Add integration tests to api_client.py**
```bash
# Edit tests/test_api_client.py
# Add test_retry_with_backoff()
```
4. **Run coverage again**
```bash
make coverage
```
**Expected Result:** 83.5% coverage (exceeds 80% target!)
### Verify Implementation
make test
make coverage
---
## Additional Recommendations
### Use Parametrized Tests
For multiple similar test cases:
@pytest.mark.parametrize("email,valid", ("test@example.com", True), ("invalid-email", False), ("", False), (None, False), ("test@", False), ("@example.com", False), ]) def test_validate_email_parametrized(email: str | None, valid: bool) -> None: """Test email validation with various inputs.""" if valid: assert validate_email(email) is True else: assert validate_email(email) is False
### Use Fixtures for Common Setup
@pytest.fixture def sample_config(): """Provide sample configuration for tests.""" return { "api_url": "https://api.example.com", "timeout": 30, "retries": 3, }
def test_parse_config_with_defaults(sample_config): """Test config parsing with defaults.""" result = parse_config(sample_config) assert result"timeout"] == 30
### Focus on Critical Paths
Priority order:
1. Error handling (catch exceptions)
2. Edge cases (empty, None, invalid)
3. Security checks (validation, authorization)
4. Integration points (API calls, database)
5. Business logic
6. Utility functions
---
## Coverage Best Practices
1. **Write tests FIRST (TDD)** - Coverage comes naturally
2. **Test behavior, not implementation** - Focus on what, not how
3. **Use real code over mocks** - Only mock external dependencies
4. **Aim for 100% of new code** - Don't lower the bar
5. **Track trends** - Ensure coverage doesn't regress
6. **Review uncovered code regularly** - Don't let gaps accumulate
---
## Integration with Quality Tools
### With make check
make check
### With TDD Reviewer
tdd-reviewer]
### With Coverage Command
make coverage
open htmlcov/index.html
---
## Remember
> "Coverage percentage is a measure, not a goal."
> "Aim for meaningful tests, not just high numbers."
**Good coverage means:**
- ✅ Critical paths tested
- ✅ Error handling verified
- ✅ Edge cases covered
- ✅ Integration points tested
**Bad coverage means:**
- ❌ Tests just to hit lines
- ❌ Meaningless assertions
- ❌ Over-mocking everything
- ❌ Ignoring critical gaps
Focus on **quality coverage**, not just quantity!Store coverage data over time:
bash# Save current coverage echo "$(date +%Y-%m-%d),$(coverage report | grep TOTAL | awk '{print $4}')" >> .coverage_history # View trend cat .coverage_history
Analyze each module separately:
bash# Get coverage for specific module coverage report --include="src/python_modern_template/validators.py"
Not just line coverage, but branch coverage:
bash# Enable branch coverage in pyproject.toml [tool.pytest.ini_options] branch = true # Shows uncovered branches (if/else not both tested)
Focus on changed lines only:
bash# Install diff-cover pip install diff-cover # Check coverage of git diff diff-cover htmlcov/coverage.xml --compare-branch=main
Coverage analysis is a tool for improvement, not a report card. Use it to:
But always remember: 100% coverage ≠ bug-free code. Write meaningful tests!
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 8,173 | 17,191 | +110% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 243 | 4,602 | +1794% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 15,747 | 7,456 | -53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,803 | 5,371 | +198% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 20,533 | 4,715 | -77% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,592 | 4,736 | +32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 22,390 | 15,984 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,207 | 4,452 | +6% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 16,724 | 4,988 | -70% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,910 | 4,935 | +158% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 9,559 | 3,697 | -61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,530 | 4,758 | +211% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 13,586 | 9,398 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,483 | 4,733 | +219% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 18,518 | 13,567 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,136 | 5,614 | +163% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 28,944 | 17,403 | -40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,535 | 6,312 | +149% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 10,996 | 24,358 | +122% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,937 | 5,143 | +166% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 11,602 | 11,293 | -3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,177 | 5,231 | +344% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | 37,390 | 25,922 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,341 | 7,670 | +130% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 14,061 | 10,312 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,360 | 5,032 | +270% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 17,354 | 16,274 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,618 | 6,404 | +145% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 21,334 | 24,660 | +16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,593 | 7,985 | +208% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→fail | 24,603 | 19,879 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,409 | 6,561 | +172% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 20,880 | 9,100 | -56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,365 | 5,703 | +141% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 16,598 | 9,757 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,904 | 5,769 | +203% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 13,453 | 3,063 | -77% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,440 | 4,626 | +221% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | 37,408 | 8,285 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,476 | 4,508 | -30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | 22,862 | 23,947 | +5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,770 | 8,047 | +113% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | 14,431 | 23,246 | +61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,316 | 6,886 | +197% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | pass→pass | 17,767 | 15,809 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,979 | 5,837 | +195% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 23 cases were attempted, and 21 counted toward the lift figure. The other 2 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +26 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 21 comparable cases. 3 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.