agentleFS
brbndonbrbndon/AppleDevelopmentFoundation/.agents/skills/swift-testing-verification/SKILL.md

swift-testing-verification

Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use after a meaningful Apple-platform code change to select and run verification. Do not use for planning-only work or before an implementation exists.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Never infer authorization from shell access or installed binaries.

    line 35

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Swift testing and verification

Choose the smallest relevant tests; run package-wide tests for dependencies or public APIs; build affected iOS and macOS examples. Report exact commands/outcomes and distinguish existing failures from introduced failures.

Inputs: completed change and affected targets. Output: executed verification results, unavailable checks, and manual-only checks. Never claim a check passed without running it.

Apple verification capability ladder

For Xcode projects, use the first authorized path:

  1. XcodeBuildMCP MCP tools. Before the first build/run/test, call session_show_defaults and report project/workspace, scheme, configuration, and platform destination. Branch by platform:
    • iOS simulator: one exact simulatorId; serialize same-project simulator tests; prefer test_sim with extraArgs: ["-parallel-testing-enabled", "NO"].
    • macOS: enable/use the macos workflow; prefer test_macos (and build_run_macos when a launch smoke is needed). Do not use test_sim or ui-automation screenshot/hierarchy tools for macOS — those are iOS-simulator-only. If no test target exists, require at least build_macos (or build_run_macos) and report the test skip and residual risk rather than claiming UI verification.
  2. XcodeBuildMCP CLI only when active repository/user policy explicitly permits CLI fallback.
  3. Repository-native raw Xcode tooling only when active policy authorizes it; obtain explicit approval when required. For macOS, include an explicit destination (for example platform=macOS,arch=arm64).
  4. Report blocked when no authorized path exists.

Never infer authorization from shell access or installed binaries. Preserve the same target context and test scope in an authorized fallback. Handoff must include the project/workspace, scheme, configuration, exact destination, commands or tools, outcomes, skipped checks, and residual risk.

User-interface evidence

For a user-visible iOS/iPadOS change, use the consumer's UI inspection contract after a launch smoke. Choose the smallest risk-based evidence matrix: the primary affected route by default, plus an affected sheet, appearance variant, or large Dynamic Type scenario only when that risk changed. For each selected scenario, capture a screenshot, visually inspect the rendered image, and capture snapshot_ui to verify semantic controls, labels, values, and scrollability.

For a non-UI change, run focused code tests only; do not require a launch smoke, screenshots, visual inspection, or snapshot_ui. Do not repeat discovery, stop/launch, or pre-fix captures after the cause is understood; retain post-fix evidence and any artifact needed to explain a failure. Report manual-only checks separately for user-visible changes.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.