ln-633-test-value-auditor

Calculates Usefulness Score = Impact (1-5) × Probability (1-5) for each test. Returns KEEP/REVIEW/REMOVE decisions based on thresholds (≥15 KEEP, 10-14 REVIEW, <10 REMOVE).

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "ln-633-test-value-auditor" with this command: npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/levnikolaevich-claude-code-skills-ln-633-test-value-auditor

Paths: File paths (shared/, references/, ../ln-*) are relative to skills repo root. If not found at CWD, locate this SKILL.md directory and go up one level for repo root.

Risk-Based Value Auditor (L3 Worker)

Specialized worker calculating Usefulness Score for each test.

Purpose & Scope

  • Worker in ln-630 coordinator pipeline
  • Audit Risk-Based Value (Category 3: Critical Priority)
  • Calculate Usefulness Score = Impact × Probability
  • Make KEEP/REVIEW/REMOVE decisions
  • Calculate compliance score (X/10)

Inputs (from Coordinator)

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

Receives contextStore with: tech_stack, testFilesMetadata, codebase_root, output_dir.

Workflow

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/two_layer_detection.md for detection methodology.

  1. Parse Context: Extract tech stack, Impact/Probability matrices, test file list, output_dir from contextStore
  2. Calculate Scores (Layer 1): For each test: calculate Usefulness Score = Impact x Probability 2b) Context Analysis (Layer 2 — MANDATORY): Before finalizing REMOVE decisions, ask:
    • Is this a regression guard for a known past bug? → KEEP regardless of Score
    • Does this test cover a critical business rule (payment, auth) even if Score<10? → REVIEW, not REMOVE
    • Is this the only test covering an edge case in a critical flow? → KEEP
  3. Classify Decisions: KEEP (>=15), REVIEW (10-14), REMOVE (<10)
  4. Collect Findings: Record each REVIEW/REMOVE decision with severity, location (file:line), effort estimate (S/M/L), recommendation
  5. Calculate Score: Count violations by severity, calculate compliance score (X/10)
  6. Write Report: Build full markdown report in memory per shared/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md, write to {output_dir}/633-test-value.md in single Write call
  7. Return Summary: Return minimal summary to coordinator (see Output Format)

Usefulness Score Calculation

Formula

Usefulness Score = Business Impact (1-5) × Failure Probability (1-5)

Impact Scoring (1-5)

ScoreImpactExamples
5CriticalMoney loss, security breach, data corruption
4HighCore flow breaks (checkout, login, registration)
3MediumFeature partially broken, degraded UX
2LowMinor UX issue, cosmetic bug
1TrivialCosmetic issue, no user impact

Probability Scoring (1-5)

ScoreProbabilityIndicators
5Very HighComplex algorithm, new technology, many dependencies
4HighMultiple dependencies, concurrency, edge cases
3MediumStandard CRUD, framework defaults, established patterns
2LowSimple logic, well-established library, trivial operation
1Very LowTrivial assignment, framework-generated, impossible to break

Decision Thresholds

Score RangeDecisionAction
≥15KEEPTest is valuable, maintain it
10-14REVIEWConsider if E2E already covers this
<10REMOVEDelete test, not worth maintenance cost. Exception: regression guards for known bugs → KEEP. Tests covering critical business rules (payment, auth) → REVIEW

Scoring Examples

Example 1: Payment Processing Test

Test: "processPayment calculates discount correctly"
Impact: 5 (Critical — money calculation)
Probability: 4 (High — complex algorithm, multiple payment gateways)
Usefulness Score = 5 × 4 = 20
Decision: KEEP

Example 2: Email Validation Test

Test: "validateEmail returns true for valid email"
Impact: 2 (Low — minor UX issue if broken)
Probability: 2 (Low — simple regex, well-tested library)
Usefulness Score = 2 × 2 = 4
Decision: REMOVE (likely already covered by E2E registration test)

Example 3: Login Flow Test

Test: "login with valid credentials returns JWT"
Impact: 4 (High — core flow)
Probability: 3 (Medium — standard auth flow)
Usefulness Score = 4 × 3 = 12
Decision: REVIEW (if E2E covers, remove; else keep)

Audit Rules

1. Calculate Score for Each Test

Process:

  • Read test file, extract test name/description
  • Analyze code under test (CUT)
  • Determine Impact (1-5)
  • Determine Probability (1-5)
  • Calculate Usefulness Score

2. Classify Decisions

KEEP (≥15):

  • High-value tests (money, security, data integrity)
  • Core flows (checkout, login)
  • Complex algorithms

REVIEW (10-14):

  • Medium-value tests
  • Question: "Is this already covered by E2E?"
  • If yes → REMOVE; if no → KEEP

REMOVE (<10):

  • Low-value tests (cosmetic, trivial)
  • Framework/library tests
  • Duplicates of E2E tests

3. Identify Patterns

Common low-value tests (<10):

  • Testing framework behavior
  • Testing trivial getters/setters
  • Testing constant values
  • Testing type annotations

Scoring Algorithm

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/references/audit_scoring.md.

Severity mapping by Usefulness Score:

  • Score <5 → CRITICAL (test wastes significant maintenance effort)
  • Score 5-9 → HIGH (test likely wasteful)
  • Score 10-14 → MEDIUM (review needed)
  • Score ≥15 → no issue (KEEP)

Output Format

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md.

Write report to {output_dir}/633-test-value.md with category: "Risk-Based Value" and checks: usefulness_score, remove_candidates, review_candidates.

Return summary to coordinator:

Report written: docs/project/.audit/ln-630/{YYYY-MM-DD}/633-test-value.md
Score: X.X/10 | Issues: N (C:N H:N M:N L:N)

Note: Tests with Usefulness Score >=15 (KEEP) are NOT included in findings -- only issues are reported.

Critical Rules

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

  • Do not auto-fix: Report only
  • Effort realism: S = <1h, M = 1-4h, L = >4h
  • Score objectivity: Base Impact and Probability on code analysis, not assumptions
  • KEEP tests not reported: Only REVIEW and REMOVE decisions appear in findings
  • Cross-reference E2E: REVIEW decisions depend on whether E2E already covers the scenario

Definition of Done

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

  • contextStore parsed successfully (including output_dir)
  • Usefulness Score calculated for each test (Impact x Probability)
  • Decisions classified: KEEP (>=15), REVIEW (10-14), REMOVE (<10)
  • Findings collected with severity, location, effort, recommendation
  • Score calculated using penalty algorithm
  • Report written to {output_dir}/633-test-value.md (atomic single Write call)
  • Summary returned to coordinator

Reference Files

  • Audit output schema: shared/references/audit_output_schema.md

Version: 3.0.0 Last Updated: 2025-12-23

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

Security

ln-624-code-quality-auditor

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Security

ln-626-dead-code-auditor

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Security

ln-620-codebase-auditor

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Security

ln-634-test-coverage-auditor

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review