coverage-analysis

name	coverage-analysis
description	Interprets .NET Cobertura line, branch, and condition evidence and, when explicitly requested, computes project-wide CRAP/refactoring-risk hotspots. MUST USE for "why is branch coverage lower than line coverage?", condition-coverage="50% (1/2)", a supplied coverage excerpt, partially covered conditions, coverage plateaus, members blocking a target, project-wide CRAP, refactoring safety, or coverage-backed risk priorities. A supplied report is analyzed directly without rerunning tests, installing tools, generating a report, or calculating CRAP unless the request asks for risk/CRAP/refactoring safety. DO NOT USE FOR: CRAP or refactoring-safety analysis of only one named method, class, or file (crap-score); test trait distributions (test-tagging); static source-to-test pairing (find-untested-sources); behavioral/pseudo-mutation gaps (test-gap-analysis); test-code audits (test-anti-patterns); raw collection/percentage-only requests or just running tests (run-tests); non-.NET coverage; or writing tests.
license	MIT

Coverage Analysis

Purpose

Explain what .NET coverage evidence proves, reconcile target arithmetic, and identify the code blocking progress. Add complexity/CRAP ranking only when the user explicitly asks for risk hotspots, CRAP, priorities by risk, or refactoring safety.

When to Use

Use this skill for interpreting supplied .NET line/branch/condition evidence, coverage gaps and plateaus, target arithmetic, or explicit project-wide coverage-backed risk analysis.

When Not to Use

• Named method, class, or file CRAP/refactoring-safety analysis — use the crap-score skill instead
• Static source-to-test pairing or listing files with no tests — use find-untested-sources
• Behavioral or pseudo-mutation gaps in existing tests — use test-gap-analysis
• Test trait/category distributions or coverage shape by test type — use test-tagging
• Writing or generating tests — this skill identifies where tests are needed, not write them
• General test execution unrelated to coverage or CRAP analysis
• Only collecting .NET coverage or printing a raw percentage with no diagnosis — use run-tests; use native tooling for non-.NET coverage collection or analysis. Interpreting .NET line/branch gaps remains in scope here

Inputs

Input	Required	Default	Description
Project/solution path	No	Current directory	Path to the .NET solution or project
Line coverage threshold	No	80%	Minimum acceptable line coverage
Branch coverage threshold	No	70%	Minimum acceptable branch coverage
Existing Cobertura path	No	Discover only if not supplied	Preferred input; never rerun tests when usable
CRAP threshold	No	30	Used only for explicit risk/CRAP requests
Hotspot count	No	3	Explicit risk requests only; cap at 10 unless the user asks for more

Discover optional inputs from the workspace. Do not ask for a project path when the current directory or a supplied report is sufficient.

Choose the smallest matching path

User intent	Required work	Do not do
Explain a supplied excerpt, condition, or summary	Answer directly from the supplied evidence	Tools, CRAP, discovery, report files
Interpret a supplied Cobertura path or diagnose a plateau	Read that report, reconcile totals, name all material gaps, answer directly	Rerun tests, install tools, compute CRAP, or generate files unless explicitly requested
Rank risk hotspots, compute project-wide CRAP, or assess refactoring safety	Use the supplied/existing report, read references/guidelines.md, and compute CRAP before ranking	Coverage-only ranking or a full report template unless requested
Analyze coverage when no report exists	Read references/setup-discovery.md; collect once using references/test-execution.md if safe	CRAP unless risk was requested
Produce a full markdown/HTML/CSV report	First deliver the direct answer; then read references/output-format.md or references/report-generation.md	Report generation before the answer

Words such as analyze coverage, what is blocking coverage, or why is coverage stuck do not by themselves request CRAP. Explicit signals include risk hotspot, CRAP, complexity-weighted priority, safe to refactor, or an equivalent request to combine complexity with coverage.

Existing-data fast path

When the user supplies a coverage excerpt, summary, or valid Cobertura path:

• Treat it as authoritative input and start there.
• Do not discover the solution or test projects unless source mapping is necessary.
• Do not run dotnet test, install ReportGenerator, add a coverage package, or read references/setup-discovery.md, references/test-execution.md, or references/report-generation.md.
• Do not write coverage-analysis.md or create a report directory unless the user requested a saved/full report.
• For interpretation and plateau questions, parse only the evidence needed to answer. For explicit project-wide risk requests, use the bundled scripts as described in references/guidelines.md.

A failed read/view operation is not proof that a named path does not exist. After one fails, make one allowed targeted existence probe, such as a workspace-relative glob, and retry the same artifact with a normalized path or alternate reader. Report the exact missing-path problem only when that independent check also fails. Do not broaden the search to unrelated coverage files or present a substitute artifact.

Collection path

Use this path only when no usable coverage evidence exists and the user asked for analysis that requires it.

1. Read references/setup-discovery.md.
2. Prefer existing Cobertura discovered under the requested root.
3. If none exists, read references/test-execution.md and run the selected coverage command once per entry point.
4. Analyze the resulting Cobertura. Compute CRAP only if risk analysis was explicitly requested.

Do not modify production code. The only permitted incidental project change is adding one missing coverage provider to an SDK-style test project as described in references/test-execution.md; never add a second provider, and report the change plus its revert command.

The automatic collection path is for SDK-style projects. For classic non-SDK or packages.config projects, use only a repository-owned coverage command. If none exists, stop and request Cobertura XML. Never migrate the project, inject an SDK-style provider, create a wrapper project, or report substitute coverage from another assembly.

Interpretation and arithmetic invariants

• A line hit proves execution, not both decision outcomes.
• condition-coverage="50% (1/2)" proves one reported outcome ran, but not which one. Recommend forcing the opposite outcome. Without source, never invent likely predicates or claim whether true or false is missing. State that compound predicates need independently exercised operands and short-circuit combinations when applicable; do not infer the exact combinations without source or fuller XML.
• Derive overall totals from Cobertura's covered/valid line counts. For target T, required covered lines are ceiling(valid lines × T).
• Projected coverage is (current covered lines + newly covered distinct lines) / valid lines. State assumptions such as fully covering a method.
• When asked whether one member can reach a target, show its maximum projected total and at least one concrete sufficient combination of supplied members or line gains. If no supplied combination is sufficient, say so.
• Reconcile member gaps against project totals. Method line ranges can overlap or omit class-level lines, so do not sum method counts as project truth.
• Never call one member the sole, entire, or all remaining gap unless its distinct uncovered lines exactly reconcile with the project total and no other below-threshold member remains.
• Name every supplied or extracted below-threshold member, but keep detail proportional: lead with the blockers, summarize the remainder in one sentence or a compact table.

Response contract

Answer the user's question in the first 2–4 sentences.

• Excerpt or arithmetic question: one explanation plus the next test or member priority. No dashboard.
• Existing-report interpretation or plateau: overall line/branch coverage, blocking members, reconciled target impact, and 1–3 recommendations. Use at most one compact table.
• Explicit risk/CRAP request: top 3 actual hotspots by default, supporting complexity/coverage/CRAP values, remaining flagged count, and 1–3 priorities. Exclude fully covered low-risk methods from the hotspot table. Never exceed 10 rows unless the user requests a larger count. For refactoring safety, rank risky methods by CRAP rather than raw coverage alone, then name comparatively safe well-covered methods separately.
• Explicit full report request: read references/output-format.md. Save the report only then.

Report only artifacts that exist. Do not announce inaccessible output paths or failed optional file writes when no file was requested.

Optional reports

HTML/CSV/markdown files are not part of normal analysis. Generate them only when the user explicitly requests report files or a CI artifact.

1. Deliver the direct coverage/risk answer first.
2. For a full markdown report, read references/output-format.md and save it.
3. For HTML/CSV, then read references/report-generation.md. Do not install ReportGenerator before the direct answer, and do not retry a failed install.

Validation

• Confirm a supplied report was used without test execution or tool installation.
• Reconcile covered, valid, and uncovered line totals before projecting impact.
• Confirm every stated blocker comes from supplied or extracted evidence.
• If CRAP was requested, spot-check one score using references/guidelines.md.
• If files were requested, verify they exist before reporting their paths.

Common Pitfalls

• Existing report triggers setup work — stop. Analyze the named artifact first.
• Generic analysis triggers CRAP — stop. CRAP requires explicit risk intent.
• One method is called the entire gap — reconcile distinct uncovered lines and the full below-threshold set first.
• A small request gets a dashboard — scale down to a direct answer or one table.
• No Cobertura from collection — report the collection failure; do not invent substitute coverage.
• Compiler-generated method names — verify suspicious async, lambda, or local function names against source before presenting them as user-authored members.
• Test exit code 1 — coverage may still exist; proceed with a warning. Other nonzero build failures stop the collection path.