Coverage ratchet
Skill rshankras/claude-code-apple-skills/skills/testing/coverage-ratchet
Claude Code skills for Apple platform development (iOS, macOS, iPadOS) — product validation, code generation, App Store optimization, and more
npx -y skills add rshankras/claude-code-apple-skills --skill coverage-ratchetAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Gate test coverage with a ratchet — a committed baseline that coverage may never drop below and only ever rises. Ships a coverage-gate script (xccov-based) plus an advisory CRAP report (complexity × uncovered). Use when agent-written code needs a deterministic "tests were actually written" check.
SKILL.md
4.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Coverage Ratchet
A build/test gate proves the tests that exist pass. It says nothing about whether tests were written — a phase with no test task ships green on build success alone. The coverage ratchet closes that hole deterministically: line coverage is measured on every verify, compared against a committed baseline, and may never drop. It only rises.
Why a Ratchet, Not a Target
An absolute threshold ("80%") fails one of two ways on a real codebase: it fails day one (so it gets disabled), or it gets set below current reality (so it gates nothing). A ratchet starts from wherever the project actually is and only tightens. Nobody argues with "don't get worse."
When This Skill Activates
Use this skill when:
- A project has a test target but coverage has never been measured
- Agent-written features keep arriving with build-passing, test-free code
- Setting up the deterministic gauntlet (with
testing/fitness-functions/andswift/code-size/)
Setup
- Copy
templates/coverage-gate.shinto the project (e.g.Scripts/coverage-gate.sh), make it executable, and fill in the config block (scheme, destination, app target name). - Bootstrap the baseline:
Scripts/coverage-gate.sh --init # runs tests with coverage, writes .coverage-baseline
- Commit both the script and
.coverage-baseline.
.coverage-baseline holds a single decimal fraction (e.g. 0.6231) — the app target's line coverage. Trailing whitespace ignored; nothing else in the file.
The Gate
Scripts/coverage-gate.sh # exit 0 = pass, exit 1 = coverage dropped
- Runs the test suite with coverage enabled, extracts the app target's line coverage from the
xccovJSON report. - Fails if
current < baseline − 0.0025(the epsilon absorbs measurement jitter from unchanged code). - Suggests a ratchet-up when
current > baseline + 0.01: update.coverage-baselineto the new number in the same commit as the tests that earned it. That's the ratchet clicking forward. - Fails loudly on an unexpected report shape or a missing target — a broken measurement must never read as a pass.
Ratchet-up etiquette: raising the baseline is routine and encouraged; lowering it requires a written reason in the commit message (e.g. deleting a well-covered module) — treat it like widening a fitness-function allowlist.
CRAP Report (Advisory)
templates/crap-report.sh combines per-function cyclomatic complexity (SwiftLint JSON output) with per-function coverage (the same xccov report) into the CRAP score — Change Risk Anti-Patterns:
CRAP(f) = complexity(f)² × (1 − coverage(f))³ + complexity(f)
A complex and untested function scores explosively; simple-and-tested stays near its complexity. The report prints the top 20 — the exact functions where a test is worth the most. Advisory only, never a gate: the name-join between the two tools is heuristic.
Common Pitfalls
| Pitfall | Problem | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Absolute threshold on existing code | Fails day one or gates nothing | Ratchet from measured reality |
| Gating total project coverage | Test-target/generated code pollutes the number | Gate the app target's own lineCoverage |
| Silent pass on tool failure | Broken measurement reads as green | Script fails loudly on unexpected JSON |
| Chasing the number with assertion-free tests | Coverage without verification | Pair with mutation spot-checks (testing/mutation-testing/) |
| Never ratcheting up | Baseline fossilizes at day-one level | Raise it in the same commit as new tests |
References
testing/mutation-testing/— do the covering tests actually assert anything (advisory)swift/code-size/— the complexity half; small functions are coverable functionstesting/fitness-functions/— architecture invariants as testsgenerators/ci-cd-setup/— CI wiring for the gate