「test-coverage」の検索結果

Orchestrate any tdmcp test-coverage work: run the coverage harness, inspect coverage gaps, plan focused Vitest/msw or bridge tests, delegate coverage writers, verify coverage deltas, and re-run gates. Use whenever the user asks to raise coverage, add broad regression coverage, create a test harness, improve tests, re-run a coverage wave, or fix a coverage gate.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Orchestrate any tdmcp test-coverage work: run the coverage harness, inspect coverage gaps, plan focused Vitest/msw or bridge tests, delegate coverage writers, verify coverage deltas, and re-run gates. Use whenever the user asks to raise coverage, add broad regression coverage, create a test harness, improve tests, re-run a coverage wave, or fix a coverage gate.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Measure Python SDK coverage or address measured coverage gaps. Use for coverage audits and metric regressions, not routine test additions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

The durable documentation set that makes an AI-built (vibe-coded) app reviewable before shipping. A small core every app needs — architecture, user/permission flows, permissions, variables/secrets, and a test-coverage map — plus conditional docs added only when they apply: emails, scheduled work, SEO, and embedded agents/automation. Defines what each doc must capture and how a reviewer or auditor uses it. Use when documenting a codebase for handoff, mapping user journeys and trust-boundary crossings, planning test coverage, or preparing for a security or performance audit.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Feature planning and implementation with 4 adaptive phases (Specify, Design, Tasks, Execute). Auto-sizes depth by complexity. Writes testable requirements in EARS notation, atomic tasks, atomic Conventional Commits, and requirement traceability. Ships deterministic Python validation scripts so structural gates are enforced by code, not memory. Features an independent Verifier (author != verifier, evidence-or-zero), a discrimination sensor, a decision log (STATE.md), a test-coverage matrix, and a self-improving lessons layer. Stack-agnostic and tool-agnostic. Use when (1) planning features, (2) implementing with verification and atomic commits, (3) validating an implementation against a spec. Triggers on "specify feature", "discuss feature", "design", "tasks", "implement", "validate", "verify work", "UAT", "record decision", "pause work", "resume work". Do NOT use for pure architecture decomposition analysis or standalone technical design documents.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Measure JS SDK coverage or address measured coverage gaps. Use for coverage audits and metric regressions, not routine test additions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyze code coverage metrics and identify untested code paths. Use when analyzing untested code or coverage gaps. Trigger with phrases like "analyze coverage", "check test coverage", or "find untested code".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use after writing tests to assess coverage quality across structural, mutation, requirements, and API/integration dimensions; organized knowledge for choosing and interpreting coverage analyses.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when implementing a new Spark expression in DataFusion Comet. Walks through cloning latest Spark master to study the canonical implementation, checking the upstream datafusion-spark crate before writing native code, building the Comet serde and Rust wire-up from the contributor guide, then running audit-comet-expression to drive a test-coverage iteration loop.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when creating a test plan for a blast radius. Assigns all 4 tiers (fully-automated, hybrid, agent-probe, known-gap) with exact commands, what each proves, and gap resolution options.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Systematic PR review with blast-radius analysis, security scanning, and breaking-change and test-coverage deltas. Use when reviewing PRs that touch shared libraries, APIs, database schemas, auth, or security-sensitive code.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyze test coverage gaps and generate tests to improve coverage. Use when improving test coverage, finding untested code, or writing missing tests.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use for test coverage with Bun, --coverage flag, lcov reports, thresholds, and CI integration.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review or improve code — one skill, four modes: bug/security review (default), performance, clean-code audit, slop cleanup. Pass mode:review|perf|clean|cleanup or infer. Don't use for writing features or generating tests (use test-coverage).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate unit tests for untested branches and edge cases. Use when coverage is low, CI flags gaps, or a release needs hardening. Not for integration/E2E suites, framework migrations, or fixing production bugs.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Code review knowledge base: quality, security (OWASP Top 10), error-handling, performance, and test-coverage checklists with severity-ranked output format. Use when reviewing code changes, PRs, or before commits. Loaded automatically by the code-reviewer agent.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Analyze recent changes and add test coverage for HEAD commit

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Identifies missing tests for critical paths (Money 20+, Security 20+, Data Integrity 15+, Core Flows 15+). Returns list of untested critical business logic with priority justification.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Test-to-requirement coverage mapping. Reads plan acceptance criteria and test files, produces a coverage gap report showing which requirements have no tests. Use during Phase 2 (Test) or Phase 4 (Review) to verify test completeness. Named after the Nyquist sampling theorem — sufficient test coverage prevents aliased (missed) requirements. NOT for running tests (see mk:testing); NOT for structural code review (see mk:review).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when answering factual or explanatory questions about the current project — codebase, architecture, conventions, workflows, constraints — with minimal cited evidence. Triggers on "how does X work here", "what does X mean", "why is X structured this way", "is this claim true in the repo", "explain X with sources". NOT for brainstorming or comparing approaches (mk:brainstorming), trade-off decisions (mk:party), debugging/root cause (mk:investigate), code review (mk:review), plans (mk:plan-creator), security audits (mk:cso), visual explanations/diagrams (mk:preview --explain), test-coverage gaps (mk:nyquist), library docs (mk:docs-finder), or workflow navigation (mk:help).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Check whether changed source files have corresponding test files. Use for code quality review before merging a PR, or when asked whether new code has tests.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when a diff may lack tests — missing assertions, uncovered branches, over-mocking, no regression test for a bug fix — dispatched by /review-changes, /do-and-judge, /judge, even without 'tests'.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Detect breaking API contract changes, DTO modifications without compatibility handling, and missing tests for changed API boundaries.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review a code diff or explicit file set through independent correctness and QA lenses. Use when the user asks for a code review, test-coverage assessment, pre-merge audit, or review gate in a PWDEV Flow workflow.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。