Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From octo
Traces codepaths in git diffs, maps them against tests, scores coverage quality, and auto-generates tests for uncovered paths before shipping PRs.
npx claudepluginhub nyldn/claude-octopus --plugin octoHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/octo:skill-coverage-auditThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
> **Host: Codex CLI** — This skill was designed for Claude Code and adapted for Codex.
Scouts test coverage gaps, creates test files, continues incomplete suites, tracks persistent coverage using project test config and git analysis.
Queries test coverage in Python, Node.js, Rust, Go projects. Identifies uncovered areas/files, analyzes trends, and generates reports before changes or PRs.
Computes code coverage for active track or module, targeting 95%+ coverage with report and justification for uncovered lines. Complements TDD workflow.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Host: Codex CLI — This skill was designed for Claude Code and adapted for Codex. Cross-reference commands use installed skill names in Codex rather than
/octo:*slash commands. Use the active Codex shell and subagent tools. Do not claim a provider, model, or host subagent is available until the current session exposes it. For host tool equivalents, seeskills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md.
Trace every codepath in a diff, map each path against existing tests, visualize coverage gaps, and auto-generate tests for uncovered paths.
Core principle: Trace codepaths in changed files -> Map against existing tests -> Score coverage quality -> Generate tests for gaps -> Report before/after counts.
These hard limits prevent runaway analysis:
Determine the diff scope. Use the most relevant source:
# PR diff
git diff --name-only main...HEAD
# Staged changes
git diff --name-only --cached
# Last commit
git diff --name-only HEAD~1..HEAD
Filter to source code files only (exclude configs, docs, generated files).
For each changed file, you MUST trace:
if/else, switch/case, ternary, and pattern match. Each branch is a separate codepath.catch, throw, error return, validation failure, and early return with error. WHY: Error paths are the most common source of untested bugs.Produce a structured inventory:
## Codepath Inventory: [filename]
| # | Path Description | Type | Risk |
|---|-----------------|------|------|
| 1 | validateUser() happy path | conditional | low |
| 2 | validateUser() missing email | error | medium |
| 3 | validateUser() invalid format | error | medium |
| 4 | processOrder() empty cart guard | guard | high |
| 5 | processOrder() payment timeout | error | high |
| 6 | processOrder() success | conditional | low |
Type categories: conditional, error, guard, loop-boundary, integration, async
Risk assessment: high = user-facing failure or data loss, medium = degraded behavior, low = cosmetic or logging
For each file in the diff, search the test directory for related tests:
# Find test files that reference the changed file or its exports
# Search by filename pattern
find tests/ -name "*[changed_file_stem]*" -type f
# Search by import/require of the changed module
grep -rl "import.*from.*[module_name]" tests/
grep -rl "require.*[module_name]" tests/
# Search by function name references
grep -rl "[function_name]" tests/
For each codepath, assess existing test coverage with this rubric:
| Rating | Meaning | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| ★★★ | Behavior + edge cases tested | Tests assert behavior AND cover boundary conditions, error cases, and edge inputs |
| ★★ | Happy path tested | Tests cover the success path but miss error branches or edge cases |
| ★ | Smoke test only | Test exists but only checks the function runs without error (no meaningful assertions) |
| ☆ | No test found | No test references this codepath at all |
Map each codepath to its test coverage:
## Coverage Map: [filename]
| # | Codepath | Test File | Rating | Notes |
|---|----------|-----------|--------|-------|
| 1 | validateUser() happy path | test-user.sh:42 | ★★★ | Asserts valid + invalid inputs |
| 2 | validateUser() missing email | test-user.sh:58 | ★★ | Tests missing, not malformed |
| 3 | validateUser() invalid format | -- | ☆ | No test for format validation |
| 4 | processOrder() empty cart guard | -- | ☆ | Guard clause untested |
| 5 | processOrder() payment timeout | test-orders.sh:30 | ★ | Checks no crash, no assertions |
| 6 | processOrder() success | test-orders.sh:15 | ★★★ | Full integration test |
After completing the map, produce an ASCII coverage summary. This is the primary output artifact.
COVERAGE: 5/12 paths tested (42%)
Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
User flows: 2/7 (29%)
GAPS: 7 paths need tests
Break down by category:
BY TYPE:
conditional: 3/4 tested (75%) ████████░░
error: 1/5 tested (20%) ██░░░░░░░░
guard: 0/2 tested (0%) ░░░░░░░░░░
integration: 1/1 tested (100%) ██████████
BY RISK:
high: 1/3 tested (33%) ███░░░░░░░
medium: 2/5 tested (40%) ████░░░░░░
low: 2/4 tested (50%) █████░░░░░
Use full block for covered and light shade for uncovered. 10-character bar. Always show exact fractions and percentages.
Before generating any tests, you MUST detect the project's testing patterns:
**Detected Test Conventions:**
- Framework: [jest/vitest/pytest/bash/go test/etc.]
- Location: [tests/ | __tests__/ | src/**/*.test.* | etc.]
- Naming: [test-*.sh | *.test.ts | *_test.go | etc.]
- Style: [BDD describe/it | xUnit | TAP | custom]
- Helpers: [test-utils.ts | conftest.py | helpers/ | etc.]
- Assertion library: [built-in | chai | assert | etc.]
For each no-test and smoke-only codepath, generate a test that:
For each generated test, show:
### Generated: test for [codepath description]
**Covers:** Codepath #N from [filename]
**Raises coverage:** from no-test to full coverage
[test code block]
After generating all tests, show the coverage change:
BEFORE: 5/12 paths tested (42%)
AFTER: 11/12 paths tested (92%)
New tests generated: 6
Remaining gaps: 1 (manual review needed)
Coverage audit runs as a complement to code review. When invoked during deliver phase:
If coverage audit finds gaps in new code, recommend the user adopt TDD for the next iteration. Coverage audit fixes existing gaps; TDD prevents future ones.
After generating tests, use skill-verification-gate to run the test suite and confirm the new tests pass.
| Action | Why It Is Wrong |
|---|---|
| Count lines instead of paths | Line coverage misses branch coverage entirely |
| Generate tests without checking conventions | Tests that do not match project style will be rejected |
| Test implementation details | Brittle tests that break on refactoring |
| Skip error paths | Error paths are where most bugs live |
| Exceed the 30-path cap | Analysis becomes unfocused and slow |
| Generate more than 20 tests | Diminishing returns; focus on highest impact |
| Spend more than 2 min on one path | Mark as needs-manual-review and move on |
1. TRACE -> Identify all codepaths in the diff (max 30)
2. MAP -> Find existing tests for each path
3. SCORE -> Rate coverage quality (no-test / smoke / happy-path / full)
4. DIAGRAM -> ASCII coverage visualization
5. GENERATE -> Auto-create tests for gaps (max 20)
6. REPORT -> Before/after test counts