Run the repo's unit tests with coverage and verify that every file touched in the current change keeps line, branch, and function coverage at or above 95%. Language- and framework-agnostic. Use before committing, before PR creation, or when the user asks about coverage.
Scanned 8/31/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add theam/claude-dev-kit --skill coverage-check --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Coverage Check?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/theam-coverage-check)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: coverage-check
description: Run the repo's unit tests with coverage and verify that every file touched in the current change keeps line, branch, and function coverage at or above 95%. Language- and framework-agnostic. Use before committing, before PR creation, or when the user asks about coverage.
---
# Coverage Check
Enforce the team's coverage gate: **every touched file must stay ≥ 95%** (line, branch, function). This skill is stack-agnostic — it runs whatever the consuming repo declares and parses whatever standard report the run produces.
## 1. Find the touched files
`git diff --name-only` against the base branch, plus staged and unstaged changes. Exclude, by convention: generated/vendored code, database migrations, and the test files themselves. Group the remaining files by the module/project they belong to so you can run the narrowest useful test set first.
## 2. Determine the coverage command(s)
In order of preference:
1. **Declared in config** — read `.claude/dev-kit.json` (`test.coverageCommands`) and the consuming repo's `CLAUDE.md`. If a command is declared, use it verbatim.
2. **Declared by the repo's tooling** — a `test:coverage` script in `package.json`, a `Makefile`/`Taskfile` target, a `coverage` task in the build file.
3. **From the stack profile** — if `.claude/dev-kit.json` has `stacks` (or you detect one), read `instructions/stacks/<id>.md` for the stack's coverage command, report path, and format, plus any prerequisite (e.g. PHP needs Xdebug/PCOV; without it, report that rather than 0%).
4. **Detected from the stack** — infer from the project files present, e.g.:
| Stack signal | Typical coverage command | Report produced |
|---|---|---|
| `*.csproj` / `*.sln` | `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` | Cobertura XML |
| `package.json` (jest/vitest) | `npm test -- --coverage` | lcov / json-summary |
| `angular.json` | `ng test --watch=false --code-coverage` | lcov |
| `pom.xml` / `build.gradle` | `mvn test` / `gradle test jacocoTestReport` | JaCoCo XML |
| `pyproject.toml` / `setup.py` | `pytest --cov --cov-report=xml` | coverage.py XML |
| `go.mod` | `go test ./... -coverprofile=cover.out` | Go coverprofile |
| `Cargo.toml` | `cargo llvm-cov --lcov` | lcov |
A monorepo may need several commands (one per language/area). Run each and merge the per-file results.
If you detect the command by inference (not from config), **offer to persist it** to `.claude/dev-kit.json` under `test.coverageCommands` so the next run is deterministic.
## 3. Run and parse
Run the command(s), then parse the produced report for per-file line/branch/function metrics. Handle the common formats: **Cobertura XML, lcov (`lcov.info`), JaCoCo XML, coverage.py XML, Go coverprofile, and json-summary**. Map each report path back to the touched source files from step 1.
## 4. Verdict
Report a table, worst offenders first:
```
| File | Lines | Branches | Functions | Verdict |
|------|-------|----------|-----------|---------|
| src/payments/payment_service.<ext> | 97.2% | 95.0% | 100% | PASS |
| src/payments/payment-list.component.<ext> | 88.4% | 71.0% | 90.0% | FAIL |
```
- **The bar is the project's own** (adaptive — see `instructions/testing-standards.md`). Use the project's configured threshold or `gates.coverage.min` in `.claude/dev-kit.json`; **default ≥ 95%** when none is set. Also **FAIL on a regression** (a touched file dropping below its pre-change coverage) even if it's above the bar.
- **N/A, not FAIL, when the project has no test/coverage setup.** If there is no test suite or coverage tooling, report `NOT APPLICABLE — no coverage setup` with a recommendation to add tests (and offer to set it up) — do **not** invent a failure or a number. Only enforce a hard gate when `gates.coverage` is `required`.
- **FAIL** (when the gate applies) if any touched file is below the bar or regresses; list the uncovered lines/branches and propose the specific missing test cases, and don't mark work complete / open a PR while it fails.
- If tests themselves fail, report the failures verbatim — never report coverage from a failing run as authoritative.
- If a metric is genuinely unavailable for a stack (e.g. a runner reports no branch coverage), state that plainly rather than reporting a fabricated number.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!