Receber por email
← Voltar para o catálogo

test-review

Test coverage review via Codex MCP. Use when: reviewing test sufficiency, identifying coverage gaps, test quality audit. Not for: generating tests (use codex-test-gen), code review (use codex-code-review). Output: coverage analysis + gap report.

172estrelas
Atualizado há 5 meses

Ver no GitHub ↗ Licença: MIT

Como adicionar

/plugin marketplace add sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow

O comando exato pode variar conforme o repositório. Confira o README no GitHub.

Para o autor da skill

Cole no README do seu repo

Mostra que sua skill está catalogada na Skillteca, gera backlink e tráfego rastreável.

[![Skillteca](https://www.skillteca.com.br/api/badge/test-review-sd0xdev/svg)](https://www.skillteca.com.br/skills/test-review-sd0xdev)

Skills relacionadas

Ver todas de Desenvolvimento →

Alerta por categoria

Receba novas skills de Desenvolvimento toda segunda

1 email curto, só com as skills novas de Desenvolvimento. 4 minutos de leitura, sem spam, cancela com 1 clique.

Você confirma o email no primeiro envio. Sem spam. Cancela com 1 clique.

Ler descrição completa

Test Review Skill

Trigger

  • Keywords: test coverage, test review, are tests sufficient, generate tests, test gen, coverage

When NOT to Use

  • Code review (use codex-code-review)
  • Document review (use doc-review)
  • Just want to run tests (use /verify)

Commands

| Command | Description | Use Case | | -------------------- | ----------------------- | ------------------- | | /codex-test-review | Review test sufficiency | Required | | /codex-test-gen | Generate unit tests | Add missing tests | | /check-coverage | Test coverage analysis | After feature dev |

Workflow: /codex-test-review

Smart detect target → Read test + source → Codex review (5 dimensions) → Coverage assessment + Gate → Loop if Needs additions

Step 1: Smart Detection

| Input | Behavior | |-------|----------| | File path | Review that file directly | | Directory | Review all tests in directory | | Description | Auto-find related test files | | Module name | Search related test files | | No parameter | Auto-detect from git diff |

Step 2: Read Test and Source

  • Read test file (TEST_FILE)
  • Read corresponding source (SOURCE_FILE, inferred from test path)

Step 3: Codex Review

First review: mcp__codex__codex with test review prompt. See references/codex-prompt-test-review.md.

Loop review: mcp__codex__codex-reply with re-review template. See references/codex-prompt-test-review.md.

Config: sandbox: 'read-only', approval-policy: 'never'

Save the returned threadId.

Workflow: /codex-test-review --ac-trace

AC traceability mode — maps Acceptance Criteria from request docs to test evidence.

--ac-trace input → Read request doc → Parse ACs → Filter quality-gate → Search evidence → Codex verify → Matrix + Gate

Step 1: Input Resolution

| Input | Behavior | |-------|----------| | --ac-trace <request-path> | Read specified request doc | | --ac-trace (no path) | Auto-detect from docs/features//requests/.md via git diff context | | No --ac-trace | Existing behavior (5-dimension coverage review) |

Step 2: Parse & Filter ACs

  1. Locate ## Acceptance Criteria section in request doc
  2. Parse - [ ] / - [x] items
  3. Filter out quality-gate ACs matching: /codex-review-fast, /codex-review-doc, /codex-review, /precommit, /precommit-fast, /pr-review

Step 3: Search Evidence

For each non-quality-gate AC:

| Evidence Type | Priority | How to Find | |--------------|----------|-------------| | Automated test | 1 (preferred) | Search Related Files test paths; match AC text → test assertions | | Runtime verification | 2 | Search /feature-verify results at L3+ confidence | | Manual exception | 3 (verified only) | Check AC annotation <!-- exception: REASON, expires: DATE --> |

Step 4: Codex Verify (independent)

Fresh thread (mcp__codex__codex). See references/codex-prompt-ac-trace.md.

| Rule | Detail | |------|--------| | Cache | request-path + git diff hash key; same session reuse | | Timeout | 30s → fallback to Claude-only + ⚠️ Inconclusive | | Unavailable | All items ⚠️ Inconclusive; advisory → ⚠️ Adequate with exceptions; strict → ⚠️ Need Human |

Config: sandbox: 'read-only', approval-policy: 'never'

Save the returned threadId.

Step 5: Exception Validation (3-gate)

| Gate | Check | |------|-------| | Reason class | Closed enum: ENV_UNAVAILABLE / UNSAFE_TO_AUTOMATE / ONE_TIME_MIGRATION | | Codex verification | Must emit VALID_EXCEPTION | | Expiry | ISO 8601; expired = ⛔ (strict) or ⚠️ (advisory) |

Exception caps (from @rules/testing.md): 1-8 AC = max 1; 9-12 = max 2; 13+ = hard cap 2. Prohibited domains: Security AC, Data-integrity AC, Regression AC = no exceptions allowed.

Step 6: Output + Gate

Gate sentinels (from @rules/testing.md):

| Sentinel | Meaning | |----------|---------| | ✅ Adequate | All ACs covered by evidence | | ⚠️ Adequate with exceptions | Validated exceptions within cap | | ⚠️ Need Human | Codex unavailable or inconclusive | | ⛔ Inadequate | Unverified exception, cap breach, or prohibited domain |

Workflow: /codex-test-gen

Read source → Derive test path → Codex generate → Save test file → Suggest review

Steps

  1. Read source file
  2. Derive test path: src/service/xxx.ts → test/unit/service/xxx.test.ts
  3. Codex generates tests. See references/codex-prompt-test-gen.md.
  4. Save to target path
  5. Suggest: run tests then /codex-test-review

Review Dimensions

| Dimension | Scoring Criteria | Weight | | --------------- | -------------------------------------- | ------ | | Happy path | All public methods, main flows | High | | Error handling | try/catch, error callbacks | High | | Edge cases | null/undefined, extremes, empty sets | Medium | | Mock quality | Not excessive, not insufficient | Medium |

Three-Layer Tests

| Type | Directory | Mock | Focus | | ----------- | ------------------- | ---------------- | -------------------- | | Unit | test/unit/ | Full | Single function | | Integration | test/integration/ | Only external | Inter-module | | E2E | test/e2e/ | Prohibited | Complete flow |

Common Boundaries

| Type | Cases | | ------ | ------------------------------------------------ | | String | "", " ", null, undefined, very long | | Number | 0, -1, NaN, Infinity, MAX_SAFE_INTEGER | | Array | [], [null], very large, nested | | Object | {}, null, circular reference |

Review Loop

⚠️ @CLAUDE.md auto-loop: fix → re-review → ... → ✅ PASS ⚠️

⛔ Needs additions → add tests → /codex-test-review --continue <threadId> → repeat until ✅ Sufficient.

Max 3 rounds. Still failing → report blocker.

Output

## Test Coverage Review
| Dimension | Coverage | Rating |
|-----------|----------|--------|
| ...       | ...      | ⭐1-5  |

### Gate: ✅ Tests sufficient / ⛔ Needs additions

Verification

  • [ ] Coverage assessment includes all dimensions
  • [ ] Gate is clear (✅ Tests sufficient / ⛔ Needs additions)
  • [ ] Missing tests have specific code suggestions
  • [ ] Codex independently researched source code branches

References

  • Test review prompt: references/codex-prompt-test-review.md
  • Test gen prompt: references/codex-prompt-test-gen.md
  • AC trace prompt: references/codex-prompt-ac-trace.md
  • Standards: @rules/testing.md

Examples

Input: /codex-test-review test/unit/service/xxx.test.ts
Action: Read test + source → Codex review → Coverage assessment + Gate

Input: /codex-test-gen src/service/xxx.ts
Action: Read source → Codex generate → Save test → Suggest review

Input: Are this service's tests sufficient?
Action: /codex-test-review → Assess coverage → Output gaps + Gate

Input: /codex-test-review --ac-trace docs/features/auth/requests/2026-03-01-login.md
Action: Parse AC → Filter quality-gate → Search evidence → Codex verify → Matrix + Gate
Compartilhar X LinkedIn