tester-detective by MadAppGang
⚡ Test analysis skill. Best for: 'what's tested', 'find test coverage', 'audit test quality', 'missing tests', 'edge cases'. Uses claudemem AST with callers analysis for efficient test discovery.
Content & Writing
211 Stars
19 Forks
Updated Jan 19, 2026, 04:33 AM
Why Use This
This skill provides specialized capabilities for MadAppGang's codebase.
Use Cases
- Developing new features in the MadAppGang repository
- Refactoring existing code to follow MadAppGang standards
- Understanding and working with MadAppGang's codebase structure
Install Guide
2 steps- 1
Skip this step if Ananke is already installed.
- 2
Skill Snapshot
Auto scan of skill assets. Informational only.
Valid SKILL.md
Checks against SKILL.md specification
Source & Community
Skill Stats
SKILL.md 542 Lines
Total Files 1
Total Size 0 B
License NOASSERTION
---
name: tester-detective
description: "⚡ Test analysis skill. Best for: 'what's tested', 'find test coverage', 'audit test quality', 'missing tests', 'edge cases'. Uses claudemem AST with callers analysis for efficient test discovery."
allowed-tools: Bash, Task, Read, AskUserQuestion
---
# Tester Detective Skill
This skill uses claudemem's callers analysis for test coverage investigation.
## Why Claudemem Works Better for Test Analysis
| Task | claudemem | Native Tools |
|------|-----------|--------------|
| Find tests for function | `callers` shows test files | Grep *.test.ts |
| Coverage gaps | No test callers = untested | Manual checking |
| Test distribution | Caller analysis | Unknown |
| Test relationships | AST direct mapping | Text search |
**Primary commands:**
- `claudemem --agent callers <name>` - Find tests that call this function
- `claudemem --agent map "test spec"` - Map test infrastructure
# 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
```bash
# 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
```bash
# 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:**
```bash
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)**
```bash
# Let claudemem find all gaps automatically
GAPS=$(claudemem --agent test-gaps)
if [ -z "$GAPS" ]; then
echo "No high-importance untested code found!"
else
echo "$GAPS"
fi
# Focus on critical gaps only
claudemem --agent test-gaps --min-pagerank 0.05```
**Method 2: Manual (for specific functions, v0.3.0 compatible)**
```bash
# Get callers for a function
claudemem --agent callers importantFunction
# If NO callers from *.test.ts or *.spec.ts files:
# This function has NO tests!
```
### Test Coverage Analysis
```bash
# For each critical function, check callers
claudemem --agent callers authenticateUserclaudemem --agent callers processPaymentclaudemem --agent callers saveToDatabase
# Note which have test callers and which don't
```
## PHASE 0: MANDATORY SETUP
### Step 1: Verify claudemem v0.3.0
```bash
which claudemem && claudemem --version
# Must be 0.3.0+
```
### Step 2: If Not Installed → STOP
Use AskUserQuestion (see ultrathink-detective for template)
### Step 3: Check Index Status
```bash
# Check claudemem installation and index
claudemem --version && ls -la .claudemem/index.db 2>/dev/null
```
### Step 3.5: Check Index Freshness
Before proceeding with investigation, verify the index is current:
```bash
# First check if index exists
if [ ! -d ".claudemem" ] || [ ! -f ".claudemem/index.db" ]; then
# Use AskUserQuestion to prompt for index creation
# Options: [1] Create index now (Recommended), [2] Cancel investigation
exit 1
fi
# Count files modified since last index
STALE_COUNT=$(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 . -type f \( -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.tsx" \) \
-newer .claudemem/index.db 2>/dev/null | grep -v "node_modules" | grep -v ".git" | head -5)
# Use AskUserQuestion (see template in ultrathink-detective)
fi
```
### Step 4: Index if Needed
```bash
claudemem index
```
---
## Workflow: Test Coverage Analysis (v0.3.0)
### Phase 0: Automated Gap Detection (v0.4.0+ Required)
```bash
# 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
```bash
# 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
```bash
# 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
```bash
# Functions with NO test callers = untested
# Make a list of untested critical functions
```
### Phase 5: Analyze Test Quality
```bash
# 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?"
```bash
# 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
```bash
# 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
```bash
# 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:
```bash
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 [ "$TEST_CALLERS" -eq 0 ]; then
echo "WARNING: No test coverage found for this function"
fi
```
### Empty Results Validation
```bash
RESULTS=$(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
```typescript
// 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
```bash
# 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)
Name Size