Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to ecodan/cicadas. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ecodan/cicadas/master/.claude/skills/test-coverage-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ecodan/cicadasWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/ecodan/cicadas/test-coverage-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ecodan/cicadas/test-coverage-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ecodan/cicadas/test-coverage-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ecodan/cicadas/test-coverage-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ecodan/cicadas/test-coverage-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00093 | $0.01120 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00037 | $0.00448 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00224 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
test-coverage-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to test-coverage-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 92 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Test Coverage Review
Goal
Audit the existing test suite, identify gaps and weak tests, and guide fixes until the suite provides robust, working coverage — typically to a Builder-specified threshold (e.g. "ensure 80% coverage").
Process
- Discover the test harness — detect the host language and test framework (e.g. Python/unittest, JS/Jest, Go/testing). Identify how to run tests and generate a coverage report. If unclear, ask the Builder before proceeding.
- Run tests + coverage — execute the suite and capture the coverage report. Surface any failing tests immediately; do not proceed past failures without Builder acknowledgment.
- Read source code — understand the intended behaviors of each module under review.
- Cross-reference tests against source — for each public function, method, or behavior, check whether it has meaningful test coverage.
- Apply the gap checklist (see below).
- Emit a structured findings report (see Feedback Format).
- Fix or guide fixes — for each CRITICAL or GAP finding, either fix the test directly (if unambiguous) or describe exactly what needs to change and why.
Review Dimensions
| Dimension | What to assess |
|---|---|
| Behavioral coverage | Are all meaningful behaviors tested — not just the happy path? |
| Boundary & edge cases | Min/max values, empty inputs, single-element collections, off-by-one |
| Error & failure paths | Invalid inputs, missing resources, external failures, permission errors |
| Integration points | Interactions between components, I/O side effects, state changes |
Line/branch coverage metrics are supporting evidence — not the goal. A test that touches a line without asserting a meaningful outcome provides false confidence.
Quality Signals
Assertions
- Must be specific: prefer
assertEqual(result, expected)overassertIsNotNone(result) - Tests with no assertions, or only presence checks, are weak
- Each test should assert one logical outcome (multiple related assertions in one test are fine; testing multiple unrelated behaviors is not)
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 2mo ago First seen · 92 lines · 93 tokens per session scan A fe688b4c77f2
test-coverage-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ecodan/cicadas (10 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 1,120 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to test-coverage-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-master
Generates test files, creates mocking strategies, analyzes code coverage, designs test architectures, and produces test plans and defect reports across functional, performance, and security testing disciplines. Use when writing unit tests, integration tests, or E2E tests; creating test strategies or automation…
migrate-xunit-to-xunit-v3
Migrate .NET test projects from xUnit.net v2 to xunit.v3 and fix v3 breaks. Use for package/CPM conversion, OutputType=Exe, preserving the VSTest or MTP runner (including projects currently using YTest.MTP.XUnit2), incompatible TFMs, async void tests, string-to-Type attributes, custom Fact/Theory/BeforeAfterTest…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
principle-test-behavior-not-implementation
Apply when you write, change, or keep a test. Assert what the code's users can observe, so that the test fails when that behavior breaks and keeps passing when only the internals change.
dart-test
DART Test: unit tests, integration tests, CI validation, and debugging.
restore-internals-seams-in-finally-blocks-after-each-test
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.