Agent-Skills.md

Agent Skills: Swift Testing Code Review

Reviews Swift Testing code for proper use of #expect/#require, parameterized tests, async testing, and organization. Use when reviewing .swift files with import Testing, @Test, #expect, @Suite, or confirmation patterns.

UncategorizedID: existential-birds/beagle/swift-testing-code-review

Repository

existential-birds/beagle
existential-birdsLicense: Apache-2.0
202

Install this agent skill to your local

pnpm dlx add-skill https://github.com/existential-birds/beagle/tree/HEAD/plugins/beagle-ios/skills/swift-testing-code-review

Skill Files

Browse the full folder contents for swift-testing-code-review.

Download Skill

Loading file tree…

plugins/beagle-ios/skills/swift-testing-code-review/SKILL.md

Skill Metadata

Name
swift-testing-code-review
Description
Reviews Swift Testing code for proper use of #expect/#require, parameterized tests, async testing, and organization. Use when reviewing .swift files with import Testing, @Test, #expect, @Suite, or confirmation patterns.

Swift Testing Code Review

Hard gates

Complete in order before recording Swift Testing review findings. Stack with beagle-ios:review-verification-protocol for universal review rules.

  1. Scope: You have an explicit list of .swift paths under review (or a user-named single file). Pass: Paths captured in working notes or one line: No Swift files in scope — then stop with no findings.
  2. Swift Testing surface: For each path you treat as Swift Testing code, confirm import Testing or @Test / #expect / #require / @Suite appears in that file (open or search). Pass: At least one match per critiqued file, or you exclude that file from Swift Testing review with a one-line reason (e.g. XCTest-only).
  3. Evidence + protocol: Load beagle-ios:review-verification-protocol before asserting any issue. Pass: Each finding meets that skill’s anchor rules; any violated Review Checklist item cites [FILE:LINE] evidence. If you report zero issues, state Protocol applied; no Swift Testing issues (or equivalent) in the review summary.

Quick Reference

| Issue Type | Reference | |------------|-----------| | #expect vs #require, expression capture, error testing | references/expect-macro.md | | @Test with arguments, traits, zip() pitfalls | references/parameterized.md | | confirmation, async sequences, completion handlers | references/async-testing.md | | @Suite, tags, parallel execution, .serialized | references/organization.md |

Review Checklist

  • [ ] Expressions embedded directly in #expect (not pre-computed booleans)
  • [ ] #require used only for preconditions, #expect for assertions
  • [ ] Error tests check specific types (not generic (any Error).self)
  • [ ] Parameterized tests with pairs use zip() (not Cartesian product)
  • [ ] No logic mirroring implementation in parameterized expected values
  • [ ] Async sequences tested with confirmation(expectedCount:)
  • [ ] Completion handlers use withCheckedContinuation, not confirmation
  • [ ] .serialized applied only where necessary (shared resources)
  • [ ] Sibling serialized suites nested under parent if mutually exclusive
  • [ ] No assumption of state persistence between @Test functions
  • [ ] Disabled tests have explanations and bug links

When to Load References

  • Reviewing #expect or #require usage -> expect-macro.md
  • Reviewing @Test with arguments or traits -> parameterized.md
  • Reviewing confirmation or async testing -> async-testing.md
  • Reviewing @Suite or test organization -> organization.md

Review Questions

  1. Could pre-computed booleans in #expect lose diagnostic context?
  2. Is #require stopping tests prematurely instead of revealing all failures?
  3. Are multi-argument parameterized tests creating accidental Cartesian products?
  4. Could zip() silently drop test cases due to unequal array lengths?
  5. Are completion handlers incorrectly tested with confirmation?