Yeah, as a TDD advocate this is the most common objection leveraged against that methodology: code with 100% test coverage can still be complete crap. And I agr

Yeah, as a TDD advocate this is the most common objection leveraged against that methodology: code with 100% test coverage can still be complete crap. And I agree. If you add test coverage only to increase that metric the result is likely going to be crap. If instead good coverage is a side effect of a healthy development cycle it's likely the code is going to be excellent. Basically, the metric should never be the goal, but discovering after the fact that your code does well on a metric is a good sign.