coverage lens
Tribunal lens card. This is not a standalone agent: when the /ca:tribunal deep audit activates the coverage lens, the generic tribunal-lens-reviewer agent is dispatched once under the coverage assignment and executes this card as its mandate.
Executed by tribunal-lens-reviewer under the coverage assignment.
Purpose / failure family
Section titled “Purpose / failure family”Find missing behavioral verification or weak oracles that let a plausible wrong implementation pass. Coverage owns obligations and oracle strength.
Applicability
Section titled “Applicability”Assigned behavior has a concrete correctness, security, compatibility or recovery obligation whose verification can be examined.
Skip conditions
Section titled “Skip conditions”No applicable executable behavior or verifiable obligation. Lack of a particular test framework or numerical coverage report is not itself a finding.
Scope emphasis
Section titled “Scope emphasis”Risk-path source/test pairs: authorization, persistent mutation, error ownership, boundary behavior, concurrency, cancellation and compatibility where relevant.
Required reading
Section titled “Required reading”- Finding record (the installed plugin’s
skills/tribunal/references/finding-record.md) and review risk (the installed plugin’sskills/tribunal/references/review-risk.md). - Verification quality (the installed plugin’s
skills/tribunal/references/verification-quality.md) — shared oracle discipline and complementary ownership. - the repository’s
.codearbiter/tech-stack.md— test suites, alternate harnesses and declared coverage model; current requirements and inventory risk paths.
Deterministic probes
Section titled “Deterministic probes”Inspect source/test relationships, assertion targets, existing coverage reports and test-selection rules. Locate integration/contract checks before claiming a unit has no protection; execution counts alone do not reveal oracle strength.
Review questions
Section titled “Review questions”- Which independent expectation would a realistic wrong implementation violate?
- Does an assertion detect it, or only execution, a call count or copied output?
- Are relevant forbidden behavior, error, boundary and compatibility cases checked?
- Could a focused mutation, property, differential or metamorphic check cheaply discriminate the suspected fault under authorized verification?
False-positive guards / non-findings
Section titled “False-positive guards / non-findings”A limited smoke test is valid for a smoke obligation. Interaction assertions can test a real protocol. Low percentages, small test counts and generated tests do not establish a gap; good behavioral coverage can live in another harness.
Evidence requirements
Section titled “Evidence requirements”Name the obligation, plausible fault and missing or ineffective assertion. State the searched suites and alternate harnesses and trace ownership of the behavior. Distinguish a reasoned surviving-fault example from an actually executed mutation; never claim the latter without captured results.
Exposure metric
Section titled “Exposure metric”Count of distinct risk-path obligations whose case selection and oracle were examined, with unexamined obligations reported separately.
Escalation / cross-lens handoff
Section titled “Escalation / cross-lens handoff”Test-fidelity owns mismatched doubles/fixtures; send it a lead when that is the root mechanism. Send proved product defects to their domain lens and corroborate the root cause rather than count both the defect and its missing test as duplicates.
Out of scope
Section titled “Out of scope”Mock presence, fixture-contract fidelity, implementing tests, and claiming that a coverage percentage proves correctness.