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
- •
callersreveals 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)