AI can generate unit tests in seconds. But how do you know whether those tests are actually useful?

Most teams still rely on code coverage and pass rates to evaluate their test suites. The problem is that a test can pass, increase coverage, and still provide little or no additional confidence.

We've been seeing examples where AI-generated tests:

Duplicate existing coverage
Depend on system time or GUID generation
Access files, network resources, or environment variables
Use ineffective or unnecessary mocking
Add maintenance cost without improving quality

Today we launched Typemock Test Review, a tool that analyzes tests during execution and identifies duplicate, fragile, ineffective, and high-maintenance tests.

Instead of looking only at source code, it combines runtime behavior, code coverage, dependency analysis, assertions, and mocking patterns to determine whether a test is actually contributing value.

Some of the issues it can detect:

Duplicate tests
Hidden external dependencies
Flaky test risks
Unused or stale fakes
Ineffective mocking
Tests that increase maintenance without increasing confidence

I'm curious how other teams are dealing with the explosion of AI-generated tests.

Are you reviewing AI-generated tests differently from manually written tests? Have you found good ways to measure test quality beyond coverage and pass/fail metrics?