Test strategy gap review
21 markdown-first software delivery workflow skills for Claude Code, Codex, and compatible agents. Standalone skill kit covering planning, debugging, CI, review, security, rollout, performance, data quality, and post-incident workflows.
npx -y skills add motao123/dev-workflow-kit --skill test-strategy-gap-reviewAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when the main question is whether current verification is sufficient for a change, which test layers are missing, and where the smallest high-value regression protection should be added.
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
2.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Test Strategy Gap Review
Use this skill when the issue is not a failing test, but uncertainty about whether the current test strategy is strong enough.
Trigger Conditions
Use this skill when:
- the user asks what tests are missing
- a risky change has weak or uneven verification coverage
- the team is unsure whether to add unit, integration, contract, browser, or smoke coverage
- the change is hard to ship confidently because test coverage feels incomplete
- there is concern that current tests exist but do not protect the right behaviors
Do not use this skill for root-cause debugging of a failing test or for CI triage when the failure is already known.
Workflow
- Identify the change and its highest-risk behaviors.
- Review existing verification surfaces.
- Identify missing or weak coverage layers.
- Separate must-add coverage from nice-to-have coverage.
- Recommend the smallest high-value additions.
- Suggest the next verification or implementation step.
Output
For non-trivial work, provide:
- current verification picture
- missing or weak test layers
- highest-risk blind spots
- smallest useful coverage additions
- recommended next step
Coordination
After test strategy review:
- use
change-impact-analysisif the affected surface is still unclear - move into the active implementation workflow to add or adjust verification
- use
ship-readinesswhen test coverage is the last release blocker
Invocation Examples
- "Use test-strategy-gap-review to tell me what coverage is missing before we merge this change."
- "Use test-strategy-gap-review to decide whether this needs unit, integration, or browser checks."
- "Use test-strategy-gap-review because the current tests exist, but I don't trust that they cover the risky behavior."