shihyuho/cover-branches
plugins/cover-branches/skills/cover-branches/SKILL.md
Find branch coverage gaps in changed code and fix them by writing missing tests. Two analysis layers: Source ↔ Test (logic branches vs test cases) and Spec ↔ Test (requirement scenarios vs test cases, when a spec file is provided). Use when verifying test completeness after implementing a feature or fixing a bug, when auditing whether tests match a spec, or when suspecting untested branches.
development
Updated May 3, 2026
$ install --global
skillsauthnpx skillsauth add shihyuho/skills cover-branchesInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
Security Scan Results
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
3
Scanners Passed
9
Scanners in report
Clean
TrivyContainer and dependency vulnerability scanner
95%
Clean
SemgrepStatic code analysis for vulnerabilities
95%
Clean
mcp-scan (Snyk)Model Context Protocol security validation
95%
Skipped
Snyk (dep)Open source security scanning
50%
Skipped
Socket.devSupply chain security analysis
50%
Skipped
VirusTotalMulti-engine malware detection
50%
Skipped
CrowdStrikeAdvanced threat intelligence
50%
Skipped
OSV-ScannerOpen Source Vulnerability database check
50%
Skipped
OWASP Dep-Check
50%
Last scanned: May 3, 2026, 4:23 AM174.0s2 files scanned
SKILL.md
- name:
- cover-branches
- description:
- >
- Two analysis layers:
- Source ↔ Test (logic branches vs test cases) and Spec ↔ Test
- license:
- MIT
Branch Coverage Gap Analysis & Fix
Find branch coverage gaps in changed code and write missing tests to fill them.
Phase 1: Identify Changes
Ask if there is a related spec file for scenario coverage analysis.
Run git diff (or git diff HEAD if there are staged changes) to identify changed source and test files.
If no git changes exist, fall back to files the user mentioned or edited earlier in the conversation.
Phase 2: Launch Gap Analysis Agents in Parallel
Use the Agent tool to launch agents concurrently. Pass each agent the full diff for complete context.
Agent 1: Source ↔ Test Branch Coverage (always launched)
For each changed source file:
- Read the source file and identify all logic branches — conditional branches, error handling, early returns, default/fallback values, and any other branching constructs relevant to the file's language.
- Find the corresponding test file(s) by inferring the mapping from project conventions (naming, directory structure, imports). If no test file exists, report that as a gap.
- For each branch, determine if a test exercises that path.
- Report gaps in natural language: which branches lack test coverage and what test scenarios are missing.
Agent 2: Spec ↔ Test Scenario Coverage (launched only when user provides a spec file)
- Read the spec file provided by the user.
- Extract all testable scenarios: functional requirements, boundary conditions, error handling, edge cases, acceptance criteria, user stories.
- Find the corresponding test file(s).
- For each scenario, determine: covered or gap.
- Report gaps in natural language: which scenarios lack test coverage and what is missing.
Phase 3: Fix Gaps
- Wait for all agents to complete.
- Merge findings from both agents, avoiding obviously redundant test cases.
- Write all missing test cases directly. Follow existing test file conventions (framework, naming, structure). If no test file exists, create one following project conventions.
- When a spec contains contradictions, or when the correct test behavior cannot be inferred from the source code, ask the user before writing the test.
- Run the tests to verify they pass. Infer the test command from project configuration (
package.json,Makefile,pom.xml, etc.); if unable to infer, ask the user. - Summarize what was added, or confirm coverage is already complete.
- Confirm coverage layers addressed (Source ↔ Test, and Spec ↔ Test if a spec was provided).
Related Skills
shihyuho/review-briefing
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Write a short author's briefing to hand to a code reviewer whose agent already has its own review skill, so it supplies the context that skill can't see instead of repeating how to review. Right after you finish a piece of work, it mines this session (and any kickoff implementation-notes) for what the reviewer most needs flagged — the easy-to-miss changes, the parts you're least sure about, the looks-wrong-but-intentional bits, and the blast radius — plus the exact commit range to review. Use when you've just finished work and want to hand the review off to another agent, chat, or teammate, when you want a "heads-up for the reviewer", or when packaging a change for review elsewhere. It does not perform the review and does not re-specify severity tiers or output format — that's the reviewer's own skill's job.
SKILL.mdUpdated May 28, 2026
shihyuho/writing-agents-md
testing
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Use when creating, rewriting, pruning, or reviewing `AGENTS.md` or `CLAUDE.md`, especially to remove repo summaries, stale rules, and other low-signal global instructions. Trigger when deciding what belongs in always-on agent files versus a task-specific skill.
SKILL.mdUpdated May 27, 2026
shihyuho/tutor
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Drive a structured tutoring workflow that turns Claude into a learning onramp accelerator — consultative diagnosis → custom syllabus → unit-by-unit guided lessons with notes/whiteboard → dynamic adjustment from an accumulating learner profile. Use when the user states a learning goal ("I want to systematically learn X", "teach me Y", "help me prep for Z exam"), uploads study materials and asks for a course plan, or signals sustained guided study (mentions tutor, syllabus, course, lessons, study plan, curriculum, 家教, 學習路徑). Skip for one-shot factual Q&A or quick code-context explanations.
SKILL.mdUpdated May 27, 2026
shihyuho/tldr
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Produce a TL;DR of a given target. Use when the user asks for a tldr, tl;dr, or quick summary of anything.
SKILL.mdUpdated May 27, 2026