coverage-analysis

# Coverage Analysis ## Purpose Raw coverage percentages answer "what code was executed?" — they don't answer what you actually need to know: - **What tests should I write next?** — ranked by risk and impact - **Which uncovered code is risky vs. trivial?** — CRAP scores separate the two - **Why has coverage plateaued?** — identify the files blocking further gains - **Is this code safe to refactor?** — complex + uncovered = dangerous to change This skill bridges that gap: from a bare .NET solution to a prioritized risk hotspot list, with no manual tool configuration required. ## When to Use Use this skill when the user mentions test coverage, coverage gaps, code risk, CRAP scores, where to add tests, why coverage plateaued, or wants to know which code is safest to refactor — even if they don't explicitly say "coverage analysis". ## When Not to Use - **Targeted single-method CRAP analysis** — use the `crap-score` skill instead - **Writing or generating tests** — this skill identifies where tests are needed, not write them - **General test execution** unrelated to coverage or CRAP analysis - **Coverage reporting without CRAP context** — use `dotnet test` with coverage collection directly ## Inputs | Input | Required | Default | Description | |-------|----------|---------|-------------| | Project/solution path | No | Current directory | Path to the .NET solution or project | | Line coverage threshold | No | 80% | Minimum acceptable line coverage | | Branch coverage thres...