Review test coverage and regression risk — procedure

Use this guide to review whether code, configuration, API, fixture, mock, or test changes are adequately covered by tests and protected against regression.

Purpose

This guide explains how to review whether a code, configuration, API, fixture, mock, or test change is adequately covered by tests. The workflow checks supplied implementation and test evidence, identifies missing scenarios or weak assertions, and marks unsupported findings as insufficient evidence instead of inventing test results.

When to use this

Use this section to decide whether this workflow is the right fit before you configure prompts, policies, or reference material.

Use case
A change may affect tested behavior
Use this when code, configuration, API contracts, fixtures, mocks, or test setup changed and the testing impact needs review.
Use case
Regression risk needs review
Use this when changed behavior may affect existing paths, edge cases, error handling, authorization, integration points, or regression-sensitive flows.
Use case
Test evidence is available
Use this when the user can provide implementation excerpts, changed files, test files, fixtures, mocks, logs, coverage output, or other evidence needed for a test-impact review.

Required workflow assets

Open the prompts, policies, and reference pages needed to run this workflow correctly.

Step-by-step implementation procedure

Follow the workflow in order. Each step gives one action and one verification check before continuing.

  1. Step 1 · Provide the implementation change

    Attach or paste the changed files, code excerpts, configuration changes, API changes, fixtures, mocks, or test setup changes.
    Give enough context to identify what behavior changed and which components, interfaces, or test setup areas may be affected.
    Check: The change under review is explicit and tied to concrete files, excerpts, or configuration.

  2. Step 2 · Provide the available test evidence

    Attach or paste relevant test files, assertions, fixtures, mocks, test data, setup and cleanup logic, logs, coverage output, or known regression-sensitive paths.
    Separate implementation evidence from test evidence so the review can compare changed behavior against existing coverage.
    Check: The supplied material shows what is currently tested and what evidence is missing.

  3. Step 3 · Run the test-impact prompt

    Use the managed test coverage and regression review prompt to evaluate covered behavior, missing scenarios, weak assertions, and regression risks.
    Ask for required test additions, optional improvements, missing evidence, and confidence level.
    Check: The prompt is applied only to testing impact, coverage gaps, regression risk, and verification planning.

  4. Step 4 · Separate supported findings from missing evidence

    Check whether each finding is backed by the supplied implementation or test evidence.
    Mark unsupported claims as insufficient evidence instead of inventing test results, coverage numbers, logs, defects, or pass/fail status.
    Check: Every required test addition or regression risk is traceable to supplied material or explicitly marked as missing evidence.

  5. Step 5 · Convert findings into required and optional actions

    Separate required test additions from optional test improvements.
    Prioritize missing tests that protect changed behavior, error paths, edge cases, authorization, integration points, and regression-sensitive flows.
    Check: The final review is actionable without overstating unsupported evidence.

Verification checklist

Use this checklist before accepting the output, publishing it, or using it as evidence for a downstream workflow.

Scope
The review stayed within testing impact
The output focuses on test coverage, regression risk, assertions, fixtures, mocks, setup, cleanup, and verification impact.
Evidence
Findings are supported by supplied material
Required test additions and risk findings are tied to provided code, configuration, test files, logs, coverage output, or explicit missing evidence.
Coverage
Important behavior paths were checked
The review considers positive paths, negative paths, edge cases, boundary cases, error paths, authorization/authentication paths, integration points, and regression-sensitive behavior when supported by the material.
Assertions
Assertions verify observable behavior
The review checks whether tests verify expected outcomes, not only execution without failure.
Setup
Fixtures, mocks, and test data are consistent
The review checks whether setup, cleanup, mocks, fixtures, and test data match the implementation changes.
Unsupported areas
Missing evidence is explicit
The output identifies missing files, logs, coverage data, or test evidence instead of inventing results.

Next steps