Tests

Review test adequacy for changed code.

Scope

1. Coverage gaps

• new exported functions or modules without tests
• new branches or error paths without coverage
• changed behavior that existing tests do not exercise

2. Edge cases

• boundary conditions (empty inputs, missing files, null/undefined)
• error recovery paths (command not found, parse failures)
• configuration variants the code handles

3. Test quality

• tests asserting implementation details instead of behavior (method call sequences break on refactor)
• tests duplicating coverage without distinct scenarios
• fragile tests (timing, ordering, absolute paths)
• missing cleanup (temp files, cache state)
• mocking internals instead of testing through the real contract — mock at boundaries only
• test names that don't read as specifications

4. Unnecessary tests

• tests covering trivial pass-through or type-only modules
• tests duplicating what the type system guarantees
• tests for code that has since changed

Evidence threshold

Only flag gaps where untested code has meaningful behavior. Do not demand 100% coverage — prioritize tests that catch real bugs.

Output

For each finding: severity, source file + test file, what is untested, why it matters, fix direction.

Then: Must-add | Should-add | Optional | Remove (if any).

See also

• tdd for implementation-time test discipline
• review for multi-axis merge decisions
• references/testing-patterns.md for concrete coverage and quality checks

Red flags

• Demanding 100% line coverage
• Flagging missing tests for trivial functions
• Suggesting tests that only verify the type system
• Broad test rewrites instead of targeted additions
• Confusing test quantity with quality