firefrost-gaming/claude-skills-reference

Files

Reza Rezvani 670930c69d feat(docs): implement unified design system across all generated pages

- Add CSS components: .page-meta badges, .domain-header, .install-banner
- Fix invisible tab navigation (explicit color for light/dark modes)
- Rewrite generate-docs.py with design system templates
- Domain indexes: centered headers with icons, install banners, grid cards
- Skill pages: pill badges (domain, skill ID, source), install commands
- Agent/command pages: type badges with domain icons
- Regenerate all 210 pages (180 skills + 15 agents + 15 commands)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-03-11 12:32:49 +01:00

3.1 KiB

Raw Blame History

title, description

title	description
Analyze Test Coverage Gaps	Analyze Test Coverage Gaps - Claude Code skill from the Engineering - Core domain.

Analyze Test Coverage Gaps

:material-code-braces: Engineering - Core :material-identifier: `coverage` :material-github: Source

Install: claude /plugin install engineering-skills

Map all testable surfaces in the application and identify what's tested vs. what's missing.

Steps

1. Map Application Surface

Use the Explore subagent to catalog:

Routes/Pages:

Scan route definitions (Next.js app/, React Router config, Vue Router, etc.)
List all user-facing pages with their paths

Components:

Identify interactive components (forms, modals, dropdowns, tables)
Note components with complex state logic

API Endpoints:

Scan API route files or backend controllers
List all endpoints with their methods

User Flows:

Identify critical paths: auth, checkout, onboarding, core features
Map multi-step workflows

2. Map Existing Tests

Scan all *.spec.ts / *.spec.js files:

Extract which pages/routes are covered (by page.goto() calls)
Extract which components are tested (by locator usage)
Extract which API endpoints are mocked or hit
Count tests per area

3. Generate Coverage Matrix

## Coverage Matrix

| Area | Route | Tests | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Auth | /login | 5 | ✅ Covered |
| Auth | /register | 0 | ❌ Missing |
| Auth | /forgot-password | 0 | ❌ Missing |
| Dashboard | /dashboard | 3 | ⚠️ Partial (no error states) |
| Settings | /settings | 0 | ❌ Missing |
| Checkout | /checkout | 8 | ✅ Covered |

4. Prioritize Gaps

Rank uncovered areas by business impact:

Critical — auth, payment, core features → test first
High — user-facing CRUD, search, navigation
Medium — settings, preferences, edge cases
Low — static pages, about, terms

5. Suggest Test Plan

For each gap, recommend:

Number of tests needed
Which template from templates/ to use
Estimated effort (quick/medium/complex)

## Recommended Test Plan

### Priority 1: Critical
1. /register (4 tests) — use auth/registration template — quick
2. /forgot-password (3 tests) — use auth/password-reset template — quick

### Priority 2: High
3. /settings (4 tests) — use settings/ templates — medium
4. Dashboard error states (2 tests) — use dashboard/data-loading template — quick

6. Auto-Generate (Optional)

Ask user: "Generate tests for the top N gaps? [Yes/No/Pick specific]"

If yes, invoke /pw:generate for each gap with the recommended template.

Output

Coverage matrix (table format)
Coverage percentage estimate
Prioritized gap list with effort estimates
Option to auto-generate missing tests

3.1 KiB Raw Blame History