tester-detective

name	tester-detective
description	⚡ PRIMARY TOOL for: 'what's tested', 'find test coverage', 'audit test quality', 'missing tests', 'edge cases', 'test patterns'. Uses claudemem v0.3.0 AST with callers analysis for test discovery. GREP/FIND/GLOB ARE FORBIDDEN.
allowed-tools	Bash, Task, Read, AskUserQuestion

⛔⛔⛔ CRITICAL: AST STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ONLY ⛔⛔⛔

╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║                                                                              ║
║   🧠 THIS SKILL USES claudemem v0.3.0 AST ANALYSIS EXCLUSIVELY               ║
║                                                                              ║
║   ❌ GREP IS FORBIDDEN                                                       ║
║   ❌ FIND IS FORBIDDEN                                                       ║
║   ❌ GLOB IS FORBIDDEN                                                       ║
║                                                                              ║
║   ✅ claudemem --agent callers <name> TO FIND TESTS                  ║
║   ✅ claudemem --agent map "test spec" TO MAP TEST INFRASTRUCTURE    ║
║                                                                              ║
║   ⭐ v0.3.0: callers shows which tests call each function                   ║
║                                                                              ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

Tester Detective Skill

Version: 3.3.0 Role: QA Engineer / Test Specialist Purpose: Test coverage investigation using AST callers analysis and automated test-gaps detection

Role Context

You are investigating this codebase as a QA Engineer. Your focus is on:

• Test coverage - What is tested vs. untested
• Test callers - Which tests call each function
• Edge cases - Boundary conditions in tests
• Test quality - Are tests meaningful or superficial
• Coverage gaps - Functions without test callers

Why callers is Perfect for Test Analysis

The callers command shows you:

• Test callers = Tests appear as callers of the function
• Coverage gaps = No test callers = untested code
• Test distribution = Which tests cover which code
• Direct relationships = Exact test-to-code mapping

Tester-Focused Commands (v0.3.0)

Find Tests for a Function

# Who calls this function? (tests will appear as callers)
claudemem --agent callers processPayment
# Filter: callers from test files are your tests
# src/services/payment.test.ts:45 → This is a test!

Map Test Infrastructure

# Find all test files
claudemem --agent map "test spec describe it"
# Find test utilities
claudemem --agent map "test helper mock stub"
# Find fixtures
claudemem --agent map "fixture factory builder"```

### Test Coverage Gaps (v0.4.0+ Required)

```bash
# Find high-importance untested code automatically
claudemem --agent test-gaps
# Output:
# file: src/services/payment.ts
# line: 45-89
# name: processPayment
# pagerank: 0.034
# production_callers: 4
# test_callers: 0
# ---
# This is CRITICAL - high PageRank but no tests!

Why test-gaps is better than manual analysis:

• Automatically finds high-PageRank symbols
• Automatically counts test vs production callers
• Prioritized list of coverage gaps

Handling Empty Results:

GAPS=$(claudemem --agent test-gaps)
if [ -z "$GAPS" ] || echo "$GAPS" | grep -q "No test gaps"; then
  echo "Excellent test coverage! All high-importance code has tests."
  echo ""
  echo "Optional: Check lower-importance code:"
  echo "  claudemem --agent test-gaps --min-pagerank 0.005"
else
  echo "Test Coverage Gaps Found:"
  echo "$GAPS"
fi

Limitations Note: Test detection relies on file naming patterns:

• *.test.ts, *.spec.ts, *_test.go, etc.
• Integration tests in non-standard locations may not be detected
• Manual test files require naming convention updates

Find Untested Code

Method 1: Automated (v0.4.0+ Required - Recommended)

# Let claudemem find all gaps automatically
GAPS=$(claudemem --agent test-gaps)

if [ -z "$GAPS" ]; then
  echo "No high-importance untested code found!"
else
  echo "$GAPS"
fi

# Focus on critical gaps only
claudemem --agent test-gaps --min-pagerank 0.05```

**Method 2: Manual (for specific functions, v0.3.0 compatible)**

```bash
# Get callers for a function
claudemem --agent callers importantFunction
# If NO callers from *.test.ts or *.spec.ts files:
# This function has NO tests!

Test Coverage Analysis

# For each critical function, check callers
claudemem --agent callers authenticateUserclaudemem --agent callers processPaymentclaudemem --agent callers saveToDatabase
# Note which have test callers and which don't

PHASE 0: MANDATORY SETUP

Step 1: Verify claudemem v0.3.0

which claudemem && claudemem --version
# Must be 0.3.0+

Step 2: If Not Installed → STOP

Use AskUserQuestion (see ultrathink-detective for template)

Step 3: Check Index Status

# Check claudemem installation and index
claudemem --version && ls -la .claudemem/index.db 2>/dev/null

Step 3.5: Check Index Freshness

Before proceeding with investigation, verify the index is current:

# First check if index exists
if [ ! -d ".claudemem" ] || [ ! -f ".claudemem/index.db" ]; then
  # Use AskUserQuestion to prompt for index creation
  # Options: [1] Create index now (Recommended), [2] Cancel investigation
  exit 1
fi

# Count files modified since last index
STALE_COUNT=$(find . -type f \( -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.tsx" -o -name "*.js" -o -name "*.jsx" -o -name "*.py" -o -name "*.go" -o -name "*.rs" \) \
  -newer .claudemem/index.db 2>/dev/null | grep -v "node_modules" | grep -v ".git" | grep -v "dist" | grep -v "build" | wc -l)
STALE_COUNT=$((STALE_COUNT + 0))  # Normalize to integer

if [ "$STALE_COUNT" -gt 0 ]; then
  # Get index time with explicit platform detection
  if [[ "$OSTYPE" == "darwin"* ]]; then
    INDEX_TIME=$(stat -f "%Sm" -t "%Y-%m-%d %H:%M" .claudemem/index.db 2>/dev/null)
  else
    INDEX_TIME=$(stat -c "%y" .claudemem/index.db 2>/dev/null | cut -d'.' -f1)
  fi
  INDEX_TIME=${INDEX_TIME:-"unknown time"}

  # Get sample of stale files
  STALE_SAMPLE=$(find . - f \( -name  -o -name  \) \
    -newer .claudemem/index.db 2>/dev/null | grep -v  | grep -v  |  -5)

  

Step 4: Index if Needed

claudemem index

---

Workflow: Test Coverage Analysis (v0.3.0)

Phase 0: Automated Gap Detection (v0.4.0+ Required)

# Run test-gaps FIRST - it does the work for you
GAPS=$(claudemem --agent test-gaps)

if [ -z "$GAPS" ]; then
  echo "No gaps found at default threshold"
  echo "Optionally check with lower threshold:"
  claudemem --agent test-gaps --min-pagerank 0.005else
  # This gives you a prioritized list of:
  # - High-PageRank symbols
  # - With 0 test callers
  # - Sorted by importance
  echo "$GAPS"
fi

Phase 1: Map Test Infrastructure

# Find test configuration
claudemem --agent map "jest vitest mocha config"
# Find test utilities and mocks
claudemem --agent map "mock stub spy helper"```

### Phase 2: Identify Critical Functions

```bash
# Map the feature area
claudemem --agent map "payment processing"
# High-PageRank functions are most critical to test

Phase 3: Check Test Coverage via Callers

# For each critical function, check callers
claudemem --agent callers PaymentService
# Look for callers from test files:
# src/services/payment.test.ts:23 ← TEST CALLER
# src/controllers/checkout.ts:45 ← NOT A TEST

Phase 4: Find Coverage Gaps

# Functions with NO test callers = untested
# Make a list of untested critical functions

Phase 5: Analyze Test Quality

# For functions with test callers, read the tests
# Check: Are they testing edge cases? Error paths?

Output Format: Test Coverage Report

1. Test Infrastructure Summary

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                   TEST INFRASTRUCTURE                    │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  Framework: Vitest 2.x                                  │
│  Test Files: 156 files (*.spec.ts, *.test.ts)          │
│  Test Utils: src/__tests__/utils/                       │
│  Search Method: claudemem v0.3.0 (callers analysis)    │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

2. Coverage by Function (via callers)

| Function            | Test Callers | Coverage |
|---------------------|--------------|----------|
| authenticateUser    | 5 tests      | ✅ Good   |
| processPayment      | 3 tests      | ✅ Good   |
| calculateDiscount   | 0 tests      | ❌ None   |
| sendEmail           | 1 test       | ⚠️ Low    |
| updateUserProfile   | 0 tests      | ❌ None   |

3. Untested Critical Functions

🔴 HIGH PRIORITY - No Test Callers:
   └── calculateDiscount (PageRank: 0.034)
       └── callers show: 4 production callers, 0 test callers
   └── updateUserProfile (PageRank: 0.028)
       └── callers show: 3 production callers, 0 test callers

⚠️ MEDIUM PRIORITY - Few Test Callers:
   └── sendEmail (PageRank: 0.021)
       └── callers show: 1 test, no edge case tests

4. Test Quality Notes

📝 OBSERVATIONS:

1. calculateDiscount has 4 production callers but 0 test callers
   → Critical business logic untested!

2. sendEmail has 1 test caller
   → Only happy path tested, no error scenarios

3. authenticateUser has 5 test callers
   → Good coverage including edge cases

Scenarios

Scenario: "What's tested?"

# Step 1: Map the feature
claudemem --agent map "payment"
# Step 2: For each function, check callers
claudemem --agent callers processPaymentclaudemem --agent callers validateCardclaudemem --agent callers chargeCustomer
# Step 3: Count test callers vs production callers

Scenario: Finding Coverage Gaps

# Step 1: Find high-PageRank (important) functions
claudemem --agent map
# Step 2: Check callers for each
claudemem --agent callers importantFunc1claudemem --agent callers importantFunc2
# Step 3: Functions with 0 test callers = gap

Scenario: Test Quality Audit

# Step 1: Find test callers
claudemem --agent callers targetFunction
# Step 2: Read each test file at the caller line
# Step 3: Check: Does test cover edge cases? Errors?

Result Validation Pattern

After EVERY claudemem command, validate results:

Callers Validation for Tests

When checking test coverage:

CALLERS=$(claudemem --agent callers processPayment)
EXIT_CODE=$?

# Check for command failure
if [ "$EXIT_CODE" -ne 0 ]; then
  DIAGNOSIS=$(claudemem status 2>&1)
  # Use AskUserQuestion for recovery
fi

# Validate we got callers, not an error
if echo "$CALLERS" | grep -qi "error\|failed"; then
  # Actual error, not 0 callers
  # Use AskUserQuestion
fi

# Count test vs production callers
TEST_CALLERS=$(echo "$CALLERS" | grep -E "\.test\.|\.spec\.|_test\." | wc -l)
PROD_CALLERS=$(echo "$CALLERS" | grep -v -E "\.test\.|\.spec\.|_test\." | wc -l)

# Report coverage ratio
if [ "$TEST_CALLERS" -eq 0 ]; then
  echo "WARNING: No test coverage found for this function"
fi

Empty Results Validation

RESULTS=$(claudemem --agent map "test spec describe")

if [ -z "$RESULTS" ]; then
  echo "WARNING: No test infrastructure found"
  # May indicate:
  # 1. Tests in non-standard locations
  # 2. Index doesn't include test files
  # 3. Wrong query terms
  # Use AskUserQuestion
fi

---

FALLBACK PROTOCOL

CRITICAL: Never use grep/find/Glob without explicit user approval.

If claudemem fails or returns irrelevant results:

1. STOP - Do not silently switch tools
2. DIAGNOSE - Run claudemem status
3. REPORT - Tell user what happened
4. ASK - Use AskUserQuestion for next steps

// Fallback options (in order of preference)
AskUserQuestion({
  questions: [{
    question: "claudemem test coverage analysis failed or found no tests. How should I proceed?",
    header: "Test Coverage Issue",
    multiSelect: false,
    options: [
      { label: "Reindex codebase", description: "Run claudemem index (~1-2 min)" },
      { label: "Try different query", description: "Search for different test patterns" },
      { label: "Use grep (not recommended)", description: "Traditional search - loses caller analysis" },
      { label: "Cancel", description: "Stop investigation" }
    ]
  }]
})

See ultrathink-detective skill for complete Fallback Protocol documentation.

---

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Why Wrong	Correct Approach
grep "test"	No caller relationships	claudemem --agent callers func
Assume tests exist	Miss coverage gaps	Verify with callers analysis
Count test files	Doesn't show what's tested	Check callers per function
Skip PageRank	Miss critical gaps	Focus on high-PageRank untested
cmd | head/tail	Hides test coverage gaps	Use full output

Output Truncation Warning

╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗ ║ ║ ║ ❌ Anti-Pattern 7: Truncating Claudemem Output ║ ║ ║ ║ FORBIDDEN (any form of output truncation): ║ ║ → BAD: claudemem --agent map "query" | head -80 ║ ║ → BAD: claudemem --agent callers X | tail -50 ║ ║ → BAD: claudemem --agent search "x" | grep -m 10 "y" ║ ║ → BAD: claudemem --agent map "q" | awk 'NR <= 50' ║ ║ → BAD: claudemem --agent callers X | sed '50q' ║ ║ → BAD: claudemem --agent search "x" | sort | head -20 ║ ║ → BAD: claudemem --agent map "q" | grep "pattern" | head -20 ║ ║ ║ ║ CORRECT (use full output or built-in limits): ║ ║ → GOOD: claudemem --agent map "query" ║ ║ → GOOD: claudemem --agent search "x" -n 10 ║ ║ → GOOD: claudemem --agent map "q" --tokens 2000 ║ ║ → GOOD: claudemem --agent search "x" --page-size 20 --page 1 ║ ║ → GOOD: claudemem --agent context Func --max-depth 3 ║ ║ ║ ║ WHY: Output is pre-optimized; truncation hides critical results ║ ║ ║ ╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

---

Feedback Reporting (v0.8.0+)

After completing investigation, report search feedback to improve future results.

When to Report

Report feedback ONLY if you used the search command during investigation:

Result Type	Mark As	Reason
Read and used	Helpful	Contributed to investigation
Read but irrelevant	Unhelpful	False positive
Skipped after preview	Unhelpful	Not relevant to query
Never read	(Don't track)	Can't evaluate

Feedback Pattern

# Track during investigation
SEARCH_QUERY="your original query"
HELPFUL_IDS=""
UNHELPFUL_IDS=""

# When reading a helpful result
HELPFUL_IDS="$HELPFUL_IDS,$result_id"

# When reading an unhelpful result
UNHELPFUL_IDS="$UNHELPFUL_IDS,$result_id"

# Report at end of investigation (v0.8.0+ only)
if claudemem feedback --help 2>&1 | grep -qi "feedback"; then
  timeout 5 claudemem feedback \
    --query "$SEARCH_QUERY" \
    --helpful "${HELPFUL_IDS#,}" \
    --unhelpful "${UNHELPFUL_IDS#,}" 2>/dev/null || true
fi

Output Update

Include in investigation report:

Search Feedback: [X helpful, Y unhelpful] - Submitted (v0.8.0+)

---

Testing Tips

1. Use callers to find tests - Tests appear as callers of functions
2. No test callers = no tests - Coverage gap identified
3. High PageRank + no tests = critical gap - Prioritize these
4. Read test callers - Verify quality, not just existence
5. Check edge cases - Are error paths tested?

Notes

• callers reveals test coverage - Tests are just callers from test files
• High-PageRank untested = critical gap - Most impactful coverage issues
• Production callers vs test callers - Ratio shows coverage health
• Filter callers by file path (*.test.ts, *.spec.ts) to find tests
• Works best with TypeScript, Go, Python, Rust codebases

---

Maintained by: MadAppGang Plugin: code-analysis v2.7.0 Last Updated: December 2025 (v3.3.0 - Cross-platform compatibility, inline templates, improved validation)