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.
In this repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- apple-accessibility-reviewSkill
- apple-app-marketing-siteSkill
- apple-design-systemSkill
- apple-development-foundationSkill
- apple-error-statesSkill
- apple-platform-plannerSkill
- apple-security-privacy-reviewSkill
- codex-bootstrapSkill
- codex-skill-maintainerSkill
- ios-macos-platform-adaptationSkill
- maestro-apple-app-testingSkill
- reusable-code-extractorSkill
- swift-concurrency-reviewSkill
- swift-package-module-authorSkill
- swiftui-component-authorSkill
- swiftui-tab-navigationSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 35
Never infer authorization from shell access or installed binaries.
≈ “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.
Files
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:
- XcodeBuildMCP MCP tools. Before the first build/run/test, call
session_show_defaultsand report project/workspace, scheme, configuration, and platform destination. Branch by platform:- iOS simulator: one exact
simulatorId; serialize same-project simulator tests; prefertest_simwithextraArgs: ["-parallel-testing-enabled", "NO"]. - macOS: enable/use the
macosworkflow; prefertest_macos(andbuild_run_macoswhen a launch smoke is needed). Do not usetest_simor ui-automation screenshot/hierarchy tools for macOS — those are iOS-simulator-only. If no test target exists, require at leastbuild_macos(orbuild_run_macos) and report the test skip and residual risk rather than claiming UI verification.
- iOS simulator: one exact
- XcodeBuildMCP CLI only when active repository/user policy explicitly permits CLI fallback.
- 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). - 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.
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
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.

