> Sorry I mis-read.  :)
>
> Indeed it ticks all my "requirements", as in they are simple to
> implement support for them.
> Are you open for a collaboration in filling them in?
> And also creating a "small" standard to describe such tests?

Yes, I'd love collaboration ;) I'll look into this after easter, not
much time right now. The idea was to check coverage of r7rs-large (once
it's done), but I'll gladly extend it to also support checking for
SRFIs.
The reason for the comments is that I split the file, and only run one
test at a time. Otherwise, some Schemes die, because some symbols are
undefined or because they don't support some syntax. Having multiple
tests in one file (which is passed to a Scheme) is not something that
seemed to work well.

> I like the fact that you can "group" the tests, and the report you
> generate based on them, but it seems it relies on specially crafted
> comments.

Yes, that was the simplest way I could think of to just get something
working. I've since worked a bit on
https://github.com/ecraven/run-on-schemes, I'd like to switch to that as
soon as it is advanced a bit further.

> * base the grouping on s-expressions, something like `(test-group NAME
> ...

Thanks for these suggestions! I'll ponder them, and get back to you a
few days after easter! I'm sure we can work out a satisfactory solution
for both of us, I think our goals are very similar!

Great you are working on this too!

Greetings,
Peter