Test Gaps Skill

Find public functions, methods, and classes added or significantly changed in this branch that have no corresponding test. This skill reports gaps — it does not write tests. Writing tests is a separate, intentional act that requires the developer's judgment.

Open team decision — whether to generate stubs: Some teams find it useful for this skill to optionally produce empty test stubs (functions with pass bodies) so the developer can fill them in. Others prefer a clean report only. Agree on this before the first team-wide rollout — the argument would be /test-gaps --stubs.

Step 1 — establish scope

git diff --name-only origin/develop...HEAD

Filter to Python files only. If $ARGUMENTS names a module, restrict to that module's files.

Step 2 — identify new or changed callables

For each changed Python file:

• Run git diff origin/develop...HEAD -- <file> and extract added lines (+ prefix).
• From those lines, identify:
  • New def and async def functions at module level.
  • New def and async def methods inside classes (public only — skip names starting with _).
  • New class definitions.
• Note which of these are net new (didn't exist in origin/develop) vs modified.

Ignore private helpers (_name) and dunder methods (__name__) — they are tested indirectly.

Step 3 — find test files

For each source file, locate its test counterpart using these conventions (in order):

1. tests/test_<module_name>.py in the same app root.
2. tests/<subpath>/test_<filename>.py mirroring the source path.
3. Any file in tests/ that imports the source module.

If no test file exists: the entire module is untested — flag as a gap.

Step 4 — cross-reference

For each new callable found in Step 2, grep the test files for any reference to that callable's name:

grep -rn "<callable_name>" tests/

If no test file references the callable: flag it as untested.

Open team decision — integration tests: Do tests that hit a real database (e.g. store-layer tests using a live Postgres engine) count toward coverage? Or only isolated unit tests with mocks? This affects whether test_task_store.py satisfies coverage for the store layer. The team should align on this — it changes how many gaps this skill reports.

Step 5 — report

## Test gaps — <branch> — <date>

### Untested modules (no test file found)
- `apps/control-plane-backend/control_plane_backend/tasks/service.py`

### Untested callables
| File | Callable | Type | Status |
|------|----------|------|--------|
| `tasks/service.py` | `TaskService.create_run` | method | no test reference found |
| `tasks/store.py` | `TaskStore.append_event` | method | no test reference found |

### Partially covered
| File | Callable | Covered by |
|------|----------|------------|
| `tasks/api.py` | `get_task_run` | `test_task_store.py` (indirect) |

### ✅ Well covered
- `fred_core/tasks/bus.py` — all public methods referenced in tests

Open team decision — coverage threshold: Should this skill flag a gap only when 0 tests exist, or when coverage falls below a threshold (e.g. 70%)? A threshold requires integrating pytest-cov output; zero-reference detection works without any test runner. Decide which model the team wants before adding this to the PR checklist.