Tester Detective Skill Skill

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

# 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

# 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:

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)

# 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

# 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

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

# 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:

# 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

claudemem index

Workflow: Test Coverage Analysis (v0.3.0)

Phase 0: Automated Gap Detection (v0.4.0+ Required)

# 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

# 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

# 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

# Functions with NO test callers = untested
# Make a list of untested critical functions

Phase 5: Analyze Test Quality

# 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?"

# 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

# 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

# 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:

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

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:

STOP - Do not silently switch tools
DIAGNOSE - Run claudemem status
REPORT - Tell user what happened
ASK - Use AskUserQuestion for next steps

// 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

# 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

Use callers to find tests - Tests appear as callers of functions
No test callers = no tests - Coverage gap identified
High PageRank + no tests = critical gap - Prioritize these
Read test callers - Verify quality, not just existence
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)

Agent Skills: Tester Detective Skill

Install this agent skill to your local

Skill Files

Tester Detective Skill

Why Claudemem Works Better for Test Analysis

Tester Detective Skill

Role Context

Why callers is Perfect for Test Analysis

Tester-Focused Commands (v0.3.0)

Find Tests for a Function

Map Test Infrastructure

Find Untested Code

Test Coverage Analysis

PHASE 0: MANDATORY SETUP

Step 1: Verify claudemem v0.3.0

Step 2: If Not Installed → STOP

Step 3: Check Index Status

Step 3.5: Check Index Freshness

Step 4: Index if Needed

Workflow: Test Coverage Analysis (v0.3.0)

Phase 0: Automated Gap Detection (v0.4.0+ Required)

Phase 1: Map Test Infrastructure

Phase 3: Check Test Coverage via Callers

Phase 4: Find Coverage Gaps

Phase 5: Analyze Test Quality

Output Format: Test Coverage Report

1. Test Infrastructure Summary

2. Coverage by Function (via callers)

3. Untested Critical Functions

4. Test Quality Notes

Scenarios

Scenario: "What's tested?"

Scenario: Finding Coverage Gaps

Scenario: Test Quality Audit

Result Validation Pattern

Callers Validation for Tests

Empty Results Validation

FALLBACK PROTOCOL

Anti-Patterns

Output Truncation Warning

Feedback Reporting (v0.8.0+)

When to Report

Feedback Pattern

Output Update

Testing Tips

Notes

Why `callers` is Perfect for Test Analysis