Question 1

How is this different from code coverage?

Accepted Answer

Code coverage tells you which lines ran during a test. Gap detection tells you whether the thing that changed this sprint, a story, a flow, an endpoint, has any test pointed at it at all. A codebase can hit 90% line coverage and still ship a completely untested feature.

Question 2

What does a gap actually look like?

Accepted Answer

Not a dashboard number. A named flow: "the partial refund flow, changed in this sprint, has zero test coverage." Specific enough to act on the same day.

Question 3

Does this replace QA judgment?

Accepted Answer

No. It replaces the guesswork in finding gaps, not the judgment in deciding what to do about them. Your team still decides what’s urgent. Gap detection just makes sure nothing’s invisible when they decide.

Question 4

What happens once a gap is found?

Accepted Answer

Generator drafts the missing test case. Executor runs it. Testsigma files it under the right test plan automatically. Your team reviews a working test instead of starting from a blank file and filing it manually later.

Question 5

Does gap detection account for tests written outside Testsigma, like Claude Code or Playwright?

Accepted Answer

Claude Code sessions already feed gap detection as context, showing what your developers are actually building. That’s different from crediting the tests Claude Code or Playwright generate as coverage. Today, gap detection maps against tests generated and run inside Testsigma. Bringing in outside test results as coverage credit is on our roadmap. We’ll say so clearly when it’s live, not before.

Question 6

How often does gap detection run?

Accepted Answer

Every sprint, continuously, not just at release time. The earlier a gap surfaces, the cheaper it is to close.

Know what didn’t get tested, before it ships.

Gaps hide between tools that
never compare notes

Each tool, its own context

Gaps don't announce themselves

The old way to find a gap

Names the exact flow that's missing tests,
then closes it.

It's contextual

Flags the specific gaps

It's continuous

What it compares your tests against.

Identified to closed, in one pass.

Find the gaps.

Create the missing test

Run the new tests

Add to the right test plan

Confirm it's closed

One confident release. One answer.

QA teams

Engineering leaders

Plugs into your existing stack.

How is this different from code coverage?

What does a gap actually look like?

Does this replace QA judgment?

What happens once a gap is found?

Does gap detection account for tests written outside Testsigma, like Claude Code or Playwright?

How often does gap detection run?

Stop finding gaps after they ship.
Start closing them before you do.

Know what didn’t get tested, before it ships.

Gaps hide between tools that never compare notes

Each tool, its own context

Gaps don't announce themselves

The old way to find a gap

Names the exact flow that's missing tests, then closes it.

It's contextual

Flags the specific gaps

It's continuous

What it compares your tests against.

Identified to closed, in one pass.

Find the gaps.

Create the missing test

Run the new tests

Add to the right test plan

Confirm it's closed

One confident release. One answer.

QA teams

Engineering leaders

Plugs into your existing stack.

How is this different from code coverage?

What does a gap actually look like?

Does this replace QA judgment?

What happens once a gap is found?

Does gap detection account for tests written outside Testsigma, like Claude Code or Playwright?

How often does gap detection run?

Stop finding gaps after they ship. Start closing them before you do.

Gaps hide between tools that
never compare notes

Names the exact flow that's missing tests,
then closes it.

Stop finding gaps after they ship.
Start closing them before you do.