agentleFS
tuisttuist/agent-skills/skills/analyze-selective-testing/SKILL.md

analyze-selective-testing

Skill35 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Analyzes Xcode selective testing effectiveness for a test run, showing which test targets were skipped or ran, and diagnosing regressions in test selection. Can compare two test runs to identify what changed.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Steady: 0 new projects took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data

Week of Sep 13: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 20: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 27: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 4: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 11: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 18: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 25: 0 new projectsWeek of Nov 1: 0 new projects
Sep 2026Oct 2026Nov 2026
New projects taking a version of this file each week, over the 8 weeks our latest run read: only 0 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend.

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

13 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈7

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 6

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Run tuist test list --json to find test runs.

    line 10
  2. Very specific:

    Run tuist test xcode target list <test-run-id> --json to see per-target selective testing status.

    line 11
  3. Distinctive:

    If effectiveness dropped, compare targets between a known-good run and the regressed run.

    line 12
  4. Very specific:

    Use this to confirm the run's branch, status, scheme, and environment (xcode_version, macos_version).

    line 31
  5. Distinctive:

    If no test run is specified, use the most recent CI test run on the current branch.

    line 35
  6. Distinctive:

    If effectiveness dropped, investigate:

    line 75
  7. Very specific:

    If nearly all targets show as miss, the entire selective testing cache was invalidated.

    line 79
  8. Very specific:

    If only some targets show as miss, a dependency change likely cascaded:

    line 92
  9. Very specific:

    Run tuist test xcode target list <good-run-id> --json and tuist test xcode target list <bad-run-id> --json.

    line 94
  10. Distinctive:

    Look for a common dependency among the invalidated targets.

    line 97
  11. Distinctive:

    Environment change: Ensure CI uses consistent Xcode/macOS versions.

    line 110
  12. Distinctive:

    Cascade from dependency change: Consider if the change to the root target was necessary.

    line 111
  13. Distinctive:

    Cold cache on new branch: Run tests once to warm the cache.

    line 112

≈ “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

Analyze Selective Testing

Quick Start

  1. Run tuist test list --json to find test runs.
  2. Run tuist test xcode target list <test-run-id> --json to see per-target selective testing status.
  3. If effectiveness dropped, compare targets between a known-good run and the regressed run.

Step 1: Resolve Test Runs

Find the test run to analyze

List recent test runs, optionally filtering by branch:

tuist test list --json --page-size 10
tuist test list --git-branch feature-x --json --page-size 5

Get basic info for a specific test run:

tuist test show <test-run-id> --json

Use this to confirm the run's branch, status, scheme, and environment (xcode_version, macos_version).

Defaults

  • If no test run is specified, use the most recent CI test run on the current branch.
  • For comparison, use the most recent CI test run on the project's default branch.

Step 2: Drill Into Selective Testing Targets

List per-target selective testing data for a test run:

tuist test xcode target list <test-run-id> --json

Each target includes:

  • name: The test target name
  • hit_status: miss (ran), local (skipped via local cache), or remote (skipped via remote cache)
  • hash: The selective testing hash for this target

Filter by status to focus your analysis:

tuist test xcode target list <test-run-id> --hit-status miss --json
tuist test xcode target list <test-run-id> --hit-status local --json
tuist test xcode target list <test-run-id> --hit-status remote --json

Assess effectiveness

Count the targets by status:

effectiveness = (local_hits + remote_hits) / total_targets * 100
EffectivenessVerdict
60-100%Healthy — most unchanged tests are being skipped
30-60%Moderate — some cache invalidation occurring, worth investigating
0-30%Low — likely a core dependency changed or the cache was invalidated
0%Cold cache — first run, environment change, or full invalidation

Step 3: Diagnose Regressions

If effectiveness dropped, investigate:

Check for global invalidation

If nearly all targets show as miss, the entire selective testing cache was invalidated. Common causes:

CauseHow to verify
Xcode version changeCompare xcode_version between good and bad runs via tuist test show
CI environment changeCompare macos_version, model_identifier between runs
Project graph or dependency changeCheck git history for changes to project manifests, dependency versions, or target configurations
Core dependency changeA widely-depended-on target changed, invalidating all its dependents

Note: Tuist CLI version upgrades rarely cause hash invalidation — the hash version is not updated on every release.

Check for cascade invalidation

If only some targets show as miss, a dependency change likely cascaded:

  1. Run tuist test xcode target list <good-run-id> --json and tuist test xcode target list <bad-run-id> --json.
  2. Match targets by name — identify those that changed from local/remote to miss.
  3. Compare hashes for changed targets — if a target's hash differs, its sources or dependencies changed.
  4. Look for a common dependency among the invalidated targets.

Compare two test runs

For each target:

  • Match by name
  • Compare hit_status (hit -> miss = invalidated, miss -> hit = improved)
  • Compare hash (different hash = target or its dependencies changed)

Step 4: Recommendations

Based on the diagnosis:

  • Environment change: Ensure CI uses consistent Xcode/macOS versions. This is the most common cause of full cache invalidation.
  • Cascade from dependency change: Consider if the change to the root target was necessary. If the root target is a widely-shared module, consider splitting it.
  • Cold cache on new branch: Run tests once to warm the cache. Subsequent runs will benefit from selective testing.

Summary Format

Produce a summary with:

  1. Overall: effectiveness percentage, verdict (healthy/moderate/low/cold)
  2. Target breakdown: targets grouped by hit status
  3. Comparison (if applicable): targets that changed status between runs, with hash diffs
  4. Root cause: what caused the regression
  5. Recommendations: actionable next steps

Example:

Selective Testing Analysis: test run abc123 on feature-x

Effectiveness: 15% (3/20 targets skipped) -- LOW
  Local hits:  2 targets (CoreTests, UtilTests)
  Remote hits: 1 target (NetworkTests)
  Misses:      17 targets

Comparison with baseline (run def456, 75% effectiveness):
  14 targets changed from hit to miss
  All changed targets have different hashes

Root cause: Xcode version changed from 15.2 to 16.0 between runs.
This changed all target hashes, invalidating the entire cache.

Recommendations:
- Align CI Xcode version with the version used in the baseline run.
- If the upgrade is intentional, run tests once to re-warm the cache.

Done Checklist

  • Identified the test run(s) to analyze
  • Drilled into per-target selective testing status via tuist test xcode target list
  • Diagnosed root cause if effectiveness is low
  • Compared targets with baseline if regression detected
  • Provided actionable recommendations

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.