/coverage

Make it your own.

In Claude Code, use the slash command and add your context. In Codex, select coverage from the just-vibe skill picker, then send the same brief.

Version 0.11.0 also supports /jv coverage, /just-vibe coverage and /jv:coverage in Claude. See shortcut setup and context examples.

What the agent does

1. Map requirements and important failure and recovery paths to the actual assertions, not test names.
2. Look for tests that would still pass if the requirement were deliberately violated, and rank gaps by consequence and likelihood.

Inputs

• subsystem/change and existing test or coverage evidence.

Optional context: scope, references, constraints, successCriteria, environment, mode, budget.

Scope

Reads

Important missing behavioral coverage; no automatic test generation or percentage chasing.

Writes

No source changes in inspect/plan. Save only requested planning artifacts. A requested audit may demonstrate an escaping defect only in an owned temporary copy or fixture; never edit or reset the reviewed tree. The test workflow implements the selected cases.

Mode

Inspect; subsystem/change and existing test or coverage evidence.

Prerequisites

Resolve the user brief and inspect the relevant project or supplied evidence. External capabilities are optional unless the selected action actually needs them.

Expected output

• Ranked gap table with consequence, suggested layer, setup and expected assertion.

How the work is checked

• Untested recovery behavior is identified despite high line coverage; a low-risk uncovered getter is not prioritized over access control.

When to stop or clarify

• Distinguish measured coverage from inferred coverage. Running the existing suite with coverage is bounded local execution; installing coverage tools or adding CI jobs is a separate implementation request.

Handling missing context

Infer

Resolve the named files, existing scripts, current task and earlier corrections from the conversation and repository.

Assume

Use the narrowest interpretation that completes a reversible local task; state a consequential assumption once.

Ask

Ask when competing targets or incompatible success conditions would change the result; continue independent inspection first.

Technical guidance

Evidence

Map requirements and failure modes to existing tests and observed execution.

Method

Prioritize unprotected invariants and boundary cases over raw line percentage.

Pitfall

Executed lines do not establish meaningful assertions; mocks can leave the real boundary untested.

Check

Show by source trace, or by a temporary mutation in an owned copy, an important plausible defect that escapes current checks, and specify the smallest test that would catch it.

Situational decisions

When line coverage is high but assertions ignore the effect: Prioritize the missing invariant over increasing the percentage.

The coding agent follows this workflow using its available tools. Installation does not grant service access or guarantee an outcome. Read the compatibility notes.

Keep exploring