review-feature-tests

name	review-feature-tests
description	Use when the user wants to review, audit, generate, or check tests for a feature in src/cobrabox/features/. Triggers on "review tests for feature X", "check if feature X has tests", "write tests for X", "generate tests for X", "audit test coverage for feature", "does X have good tests".

Review Feature Tests

Review or plan pytest tests for a single cobrabox feature. Produces an actionable plan document for a coding agent or developer to implement.

Usage

/review-feature-tests src/cobrabox/features/my_feature.py

Procedure

1. Read inputs and check coverage

• Read the feature file at $ARGUMENTS
• Derive the expected test path: tests/test_feature_<feature_name>.py
• Check per-file coverage: Run uv run pytest tests/test_feature_<feature_name>.py --cov=src/cobrabox/features/<feature_name>.py --cov-report=term-missing and note the coverage percentage. If <95%, flag as HIGH severity issue.

2. Branch on test file existence

If test file does not exist — Scratch mode

Load references/test-patterns.md. Using the feature's signature, parameters, and behaviour, plan a complete test file covering all required scenarios.

If test file exists — Gap-fill mode

Read the test file. Load references/criteria.md and evaluate against all criteria. Load references/test-patterns.md for any missing scenarios that need planned code.

3. Write the plan

Derive feature name from filename (e.g. my_feature.py → my_feature). Determine the domain from the feature file path (e.g. src/cobrabox/features/time_domain/line_length.py → time_domain).

The domain subdirectories are:

• time_domain/ — Morphological & temporal statistics
• frequency_domain/ — Spectral analysis
• time_frequency/ — Joint time-frequency methods
• connectivity/ — Inter-channel relationships
• decomposition/ — Signal decomposition methods
• windowing/ — Windowing & aggregation
• reductions/ — Basic statistical reductions

Create docs/agent-reviews/<domain>/ if it does not exist. Write plan to docs/agent-reviews/<domain>/<feature-name>-tests.md using the output format below.

4. Validate review file with markdownlint

Run markdownlint on the generated review file to ensure it has no markdown formatting issues:

markdownlint docs/agent-reviews/<domain>/<feature-name>-tests.md

If markdownlint reports any errors, fix them in the review file before proceeding.

Common issues to fix:

• Missing blank lines around headings (MD022)
• Missing blank lines around lists (MD032)
• Missing blank lines around fenced code blocks (MD031)
• Missing language specifier on code blocks (MD040)

Important exception for MD050 (strong-style): Do NOT convert __ to ** when it appears inside code blocks or inline code. Patterns like __future__, __call__, __init__, etc. are Python dunder names and must remain as __name__. Only fix bold text that uses __text__ outside of code.

5. Report to conversation

Print a single line:

Review written to docs/agent-reviews/<domain>/<feature-name>-tests.md — <MISSING|NEEDS WORK|PASS> (<N> issues)

---

Output format

Scratch mode

# Test Plan: <feature_name>

**Feature**: `src/cobrabox/features/<feature>.py`
**Test file**: `tests/test_feature_<feature_name>.py` (does not exist)
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Verdict**: MISSING

## Summary

Brief description of what the feature does and what the tests will verify.

## Proposed test file

\`\`\`python
<complete proposed test file>
\`\`\`

Gap-fill mode

# Test Review: <feature_name>

**Feature**: `src/cobrabox/features/<feature>.py`
**Test file**: `tests/test_feature_<feature_name>.py`
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Verdict**: PASS | NEEDS WORK

## Coverage

Report the per-file coverage percentage and any uncovered lines:

```text
SlidingWindowReduce: 100% (34 statements, 0 missing)

If coverage is <95%, list the missing lines and flag as HIGH severity in Action List.

Summary

One paragraph on overall test quality and key gaps.

Keep

Tests that are correct and complete — no changes needed:

• test_<name> — reason it passes

Fix

Tests that exist but need changes:

test_<name>

Issue: <what's wrong>

# corrected version

Add

Missing scenarios — new tests to add:

test_<feature>_<scenario>

# new test

Action List

1. [Severity: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] What to do (file, line if applicable)
2. ...

Severity guide:

• HIGH — missing required scenario, no docstring, missing metadata preservation test, coverage <95%
• MEDIUM — incomplete assertion, wrong naming convention, missing -> None
• LOW — style, minor improvements

If all required scenarios are covered and criteria pass, write ## Action List\n\nNone. and set verdict to PASS.