1
Identify test cases and priority
KomAInu identifies every test case for a requirement and indicates the priority of each test.
KomAInu·Solution
Test Coverage Gap Analysis
KomAInu runs test coverage gap analysis on your requirements and test repository, surfacing missing, weak and false-positive coverage before it turns into a software bug or an audit finding.
What is test coverage gap analysis?
Test coverage gap analysis compares what should be tested against what is actually tested, and identifies the requirements that are missing, weakly, or only superficially covered. It goes beyond raw code coverage or MC/DC metrics: a requirement can have a linked test and still not be verified. For QA, V&V and IVVQ teams on critical software, closing these coverage gaps is what stands between a passing audit and a costly finding, often by generating the missing test cases those gaps reveal.
A linked test is not real requirements coverage
Coverage that looks complete on paper is often the most dangerous, because the gaps only appear when it is too late.
Linked but not verified
A test associated with a requirement doesn't mean the requirement is truly covered. Critical edge cases and boundary conditions can still be missing.
False-positive coverage
The matrix looks green, but the expected behavior is never actually checked. That is how teams end up with false-positive test coverage.
Gaps surface at audit time
Partially tested or forgotten requirements often only show up during an internal audit or certification review, too late to fix calmly.
How KomAInu runs coverage gap analysis
KomAInu identifies the scenarios needed to cover each requirement, compares them against your existing tests, detects missing and insufficient coverage, and produces a requirements coverage view your team can review.
2
Detect false positives and gaps
Based on traceability, KomAInu analyzes your test files to identify false-positive tests and uncovered test cases, and surfaces them in its interface.
Example: a requirement states "the system shall reject inputs over 100 characters," and a linked test only asserts that the input field renders. It never submits an over-length value or checks for a rejection. KomAInu flags this as a false positive: the test passes, the matrix looks green, but the required behavior was never exercised.
Built for critical software
An agnostic solution for regulated teams that cannot afford a coverage gap to reach production.
For checks before merge, KomAInu also provides pull request compliance review.
Compatible with your standards
KomAInu supports coverage work around DO-178C, ISO 26262, EN 50128 and IEC 62304 without heavy reconfiguration.
Your data never leaves
Run KomAInu on-premise or with a private model. Requirements, tests and code stay inside your infrastructure.
Risk-based prioritization
Not every gap has the same risk. KomAInu ranks coverage gaps by safety, compliance and business impact so teams focus first.
Frequently asked questions
What is test coverage gap analysis?
It compares what should be tested against what is actually tested, and identifies missing, weak or false-positive coverage across your requirements.
How is this different from code coverage or MC/DC?
Code coverage and MC/DC measure how much code runs during tests. Coverage gap analysis works at the requirement level, checking whether each requirement's expected behavior is actually verified.
What is false-positive test coverage?
It is a test that appears to cover a requirement but does not fully verify the required behavior, giving a false sense of completeness.
How does KomAInu detect missing test cases?
KomAInu reads each requirement, derives the verification scenarios it expects, and compares them with your existing tests to reveal what is missing.
Can KomAInu prioritize coverage gaps by risk?
Yes. KomAInu ranks missing and weak coverage by criticality and potential impact so the highest-risk gaps are addressed first.
Does KomAInu work with my existing test repository?
Yes. KomAInu analyzes your existing SRS and test repository. You don't need to restructure them first.
Coverage evidence
A reproducible benchmark for missed test links
TraceFuse evaluates 1,092 requirement-test pairs from LibEST and shows why structured fusion can catch traceability gaps more reliably than a raw frontier-model prompt.
Read the TraceFuse benchmarkClose your test coverage gaps
Talk to our team about running coverage gap analysis on your DO-178C, ISO 26262, EN 50128 or IEC 62304 project.
See how we generate the missing tests