>> ISTM that the coverage tests as currently written aren't good tests.

> Hi, I'd like to remind everyone to be open, respectful, and considerate. There are ways to describe hos things that can be improved. There is no need to denigrate other people's work.

I find this to be an overreaction in this case.  Sure, it could have been worded more positively, but the negativity was very mild; the tests weren't even being called "bad", not to mention overly negative wording e.g. "horrible".

Further, you omitted the followup explanation of *what about the tests isn't good*:

> Otherwise, the tests are relying on a non-guaranteed implementation detail.

IMO we shouldn't require ourselves to be overly careful in our wording, such as avoiding any negative wording entirely.