harshitsinghbhandari/test-coverage-audit

Overview

This skill provides a two-phase review of testing strategies and test coverage:

1. Audit Phase (Sukuna mindset): Cold, systematic dissecting of test quality, missing coverage paths, and strategy coherence. Identifies brittle tests or logic gaps with surgical precision.
2. Improvements Phase (Gojo mindset): Elegant, comprehensive testing strategy roadmap organized by priority. Offers perceptive solutions to improve the testing pyramid.

Both outputs are produced in a single run, enabling teams to understand their testing weaknesses and how to shore up their defenses systematically.

Activation Rules

Explicit triggers only. This skill activates ONLY when the user explicitly mentions:

• "audit tests"
• "test coverage audit"
• "brutal test review"
• "review testing strategy"
• Similar explicit phrases requesting a test suite review.

Required input: User must provide or reference the test files and the corresponding source code files. If no files are provided, politely request: "Please provide the test and source files you'd like audited."

File format: All audited content is source and test code.

Phase 1: Test Audit Report (audit.md)

Mindset: Ruthless, Direct, Factual

The audit phase adopts a no-nonsense, penetrating analytical approach:

• Direct language: Identify exactly where tests fail to validate behavior.
• Systematic: Analyze coverage gaps, assertion quality, and mock overuses.
• Evidence-based: Every claim is backed by specific test function names or lines.
• No sugar-coating: Call out tests that pass without actually testing anything.

Output Structure

Generate audit.md with this exact structure:

# Test Coverage & Strategy Audit Report

## Executive Summary
- **Overall Score**: X/1000
- **Testing Pyramid Health**: [Healthy / Inverted / Missing Layers]
- **Primary Strengths**: ...
- **Critical Weaknesses**: ...

## File/Module Scores
| Source Module | Test Coverage/Quality Score /100 | Assessment |
|---------------|----------------------------------|------------|
| [module] | [score] | [one-line verdict] |

## Detailed Findings

### Coverage Gaps
[Analysis of untested happy paths, missing edge cases, and neglected error conditions]

### Test Quality & Assertions
[Are tests actually validating behavior or just executing code? Assessment of assertion strength.]

### Mocking & Coupling
[Overuse of mocks that hide integration issues, tests too tightly coupled to implementation details]

### Maintainability & Structure
[Brittle tests, duplicated setup logic, setup/teardown health, slow tests]

### Strategy Coherence
[Do the tests align with the system's risk priorities? Is the unit/integration/e2e ratio sensible?]

## Final Verdict
[Summary of the overall testing posture and confidence level]

Scoring Methodology

Per-file quality scores (/100):

• 90–100: Robust, behavioral tests; high confidence, handles edge cases
• 70–89: Solid tests but missing edge cases or relying too much on implementation details
• 50–69: Tests exist but are brittle, overly mocked, or lack meaningful assertions
• <50: Dangerous; tests provide false confidence, entirely missing layers

Overall score (/1000):

• Weighted average, with heavy penalties (-100 to -400) for inverted testing pyramids, critical untested paths, or tests that don't assert anything.

Evaluation criteria:

• Are error conditions and edge cases tested?
• Are tests behavioral (testing inputs/outputs) rather than structural (testing private internals)?
• Are fixtures and setups DRY?
• Are there assertions, or are they just "does not crash" tests?

Standards for Analysis

• Reference everything: Use exact test names and assertions.
• Look for false confidence: Actively seek out tests that look comprehensive but mock everything related to the database or external services without integration tests to back them up.
• Explain the impact: (e.g., "This test mocks the core business logic, meaning if the logic changes, the test still passes but production breaks.")
• Report everything you find: If a test is meaningless or provides false confidence, say so. Do not soften findings. "Tests exist but test nothing" is a valid and important finding.
• Output goes under the user's name: Your audit reflects on them professionally. Inflated scores or softened assessments defeat the purpose.

Phase 2: Improvements Roadmap (improvements.md)

Mindset: Perceptive, Solution-Focused, Comprehensive

The improvements phase adopts a calm, methodical, strategic mindset:

• Clarity of vision: See where the testing net has holes and prioritize patches.
• Elegance: Offer robust, maintainable testing strategies.
• Actionability: Provide clear direction for writing the missing tests.

Output Structure

Generate improvements.md with this exact structure:

# Testing Strategy Improvements Roadmap

## Critical Test Additions & Fixes
[Untested critical paths or tests that must be rewritten immediately because they are brittle/useless]

### Improvement: [Name]
- **Target**: [File/function]
- **Problem**: [Clear description of missing coverage or bad test]
- **Impact**: [Why this is critical to catch bugs]
- **Suggested Approach**: [How to write/rewrite the test, including what to assert]

## Medium Priority Testing Enhancements
[Broadening edge cases, reducing mock usage, improving test setup]

### Improvement: [Name]
- **Target**: [File/module]
- **Problem**: [Clear description]
- **Impact**: [Why this makes tests better]
- **Suggested Approach**: [Solution outline]

## Nice-to-Have Enhancements
[Test speed optimizations, parametrization, CI/CD improvements]

### Enhancement: [Name]
- **Target**: [Test suite]
- **Description**: [What could be improved]
- **Benefit**: [Why it's worth doing]
- **Suggested Approach**: [Solution outline]

Standards for Improvements

• Prioritize based on risk: Business logic and security paths are Critical. Utilities are Medium. Speed is Nice-to-Have.
• Provide actionable test outlines: Instead of "write more tests for X," tell them "Add a parametrized test for X that inputs A, B, C and asserts it throws Y."
• No full test generation yet: Provide the strategy and structure, but do not write the entire 500-line test suite file.

Workflow

1. User triggers: User provides tests/code and says "audit tests" or "review test coverage".
2. Agent reads files: Parse all provided tested and source code.
3. Sukuna phase: Produce audit.md with ruthless, systematic breakdown of testing flaws.
4. Gojo phase: Produce improvements.md with solution-focused testing roadmap.
5. Deliver both: Present both files, written to disk, and ask if the user wants to implement specific tests.

Quality Assurance

• Do not invoke this skill unless explicitly triggered.
• Keep output highly professional.
• Do not auto-generate the actual test implementations without asking.

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Audit these tests"
• "Review my test coverage for these python files"
• "Give me a brutal test review"
• "Audit test strategy for [list of files]"