# Test Gap Finder > Finds the untested code that actually matters, by ranking coverage gaps against how often each file changes. Reads an existing coverage report when there is one and falls back to structural pairing when there is not. Use when the user asks what to test next, where the coverage holes are, or wants to raise coverage without writing tests nobody needs. - Skill: `contexory/test-gap-finder` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add contexory/test-gap-finder` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/contexory/test-gap-finder/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: Contexory (https://skillmd.com/u/contexory) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/contexory/test-gap-finder --- # Test gap finder Coverage percentage is a bad target and a useful signal. The number says nothing about risk; *which* lines are uncovered, and how often those lines change, says a great deal. This skill exists because the obvious approach — sort by lowest coverage, write tests from the top — spends its effort on the files nobody touches. A file at 40% that has not changed in two years is stable by demonstration. A file at 85% that changes every week is where the next incident comes from. ## Procedure ### 1. Rank the gaps `` is the directory this SKILL.md was loaded from — the skill installs outside your project, so its script is named by full path, never relatively. ``` python3 /scripts/coverage_gaps.py # auto-detects a coverage report python3 /scripts/coverage_gaps.py --since 1.year # widen or narrow the churn window ``` The script finds a coverage summary (`coverage/coverage-summary.json` and the usual alternatives), counts commits per file over the churn window, and ranks by **uncovered lines × commits**. It prints the top gaps with both numbers visible, so the ranking can be argued with rather than taken on faith. **With no coverage report it says so** and falls back to structural pairing: source files with no corresponding test file, ranked by the same churn. State clearly which of the two modes produced your answer — they are not equally trustworthy, and a reader who assumes real coverage data when there was none will over-trust the list. ### 2. Read the top few files before proposing anything The ranking is a heuristic and it is wrong sometimes, in three specific ways worth checking by hand: - **generated or vendored code** that the coverage config failed to exclude — never worth testing, fix the config instead - **thin delegation** — a file that only wires other tested things together, where a test asserts the wiring and nothing else - **already covered elsewhere** — integration or end-to-end tests that the unit coverage run never sees, which is common for route handlers and CLI entry points ### 3. Pick the branch, not the file For each file you keep, find the specific uncovered branch worth a test — the error path, the boundary, the early return. "Add tests for `foo.ts`" is not a finding. "`foo.ts` never tests the path where the token is expired" is. ### 4. Write the smallest test that would have caught a real bug The test to write is the one that fails if the risky branch regresses. If you cannot describe the failure it would catch, the branch probably does not need the test — say so and move down the list. ## Output 1. **Mode** — coverage-backed or structural, stated first 2. **Top gaps** — file, uncovered lines, commits in window, and one sentence on why it ranks 3. **Dismissed** — anything from the top of the ranking you are discarding, with the reason (generated, delegation, covered elsewhere) 4. **Recommended tests** — the specific branch, and the failure each test would catch ## What this skill deliberately does not do - **It does not target a coverage number.** Raising a percentage is not a goal, and a skill that chases one produces tests that assert nothing. - **It does not write tests for generated, vendored or presentational files**, even when they top the ranking. It reports a coverage-config bug instead. - **It does not trust the ranking over the code.** Step 2 exists to overrule step 1. - **It does not run the test suite to generate coverage.** A test run can be slow, destructive, or need credentials this skill has no business handling — it reads a report that already exists and says so plainly when there is none. - **It does not report a file as untested because its tests live somewhere unusual.** Where the two modes disagree, it says so rather than picking. ## When this is the wrong tool - **The gap you care about is inside a change you just made.** A diff-scoped pass over that change answers it faster and more precisely than a repository-wide ranking. - **A test already exists but passes and fails at random.** That is reliability, not coverage — measure the failure rate rather than adding another test. - **You want to know what a change might break** rather than what is untested. That is a call-site question.