swift-testing-code-review

$npx mdskill add existential-birds/beagle/swift-testing-code-review

Reviews Swift Testing code for correctness and best practices.

  • Ensures proper use of #expect, #require, @Test, and @Suite in Swift files.
  • Depends on file access to .swift files and the review-verification-protocol skill.
  • Checks for import Testing or testing annotations before critiquing each file.
  • Outputs findings with file:line evidence or a summary of no issues found.

SKILL.md

.github/skills/swift-testing-code-reviewView on GitHub ↗
---
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 [review-verification-protocol](../review-verification-protocol/SKILL.md) 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 [review-verification-protocol](../review-verification-protocol/SKILL.md) before asserting any issue. **Pass:** Each finding meets that skill’s anchor rules; any violated [Review Checklist](#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](references/expect-macro.md) |
| @Test with arguments, traits, zip() pitfalls | [references/parameterized.md](references/parameterized.md) |
| confirmation, async sequences, completion handlers | [references/async-testing.md](references/async-testing.md) |
| @Suite, tags, parallel execution, .serialized | [references/organization.md](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`?

More from existential-birds/beagle

SkillDescription
adr-decision-extractionUse when you need to mine a conversation, session transcript, or design discussion for architectural decisions before writing ADRs. Identifies problem-solution pairs, trade-off debates, technology choices, and explicit \"[ADR]\" tags. Triggers on \"what decisions did we make\", \"extract decisions from this chat\", \"find the choices in our discussion\", or \"summarize architectural decisions\". Also useful after long planning sessions to capture decisions that were made implicitly. Does NOT write ADR documents \u2014 use adr-writing or write-adr for that.
adr-writingUse when writing or formatting an ADR document using the MADR template, applying Definition of Done (E.C.A.D.R.) criteria, or verifying ADR completeness. Triggers on \"write the ADR\", \"format as MADR\", \"check ADR quality\", \"mark gaps in ADR\". Also triggers when a decision has been extracted and needs to become a document. Does NOT extract decisions from conversations (use adr-decision-extraction) or orchestrate the full extract-confirm-write workflow (use write-adr).
agent-architecture-analysisUse when auditing an agent codebase against the 12-Factor Agents methodology, reviewing LLM-powered system architecture, or assessing agentic app compliance. Triggers on \"analyze agent architecture\", \"12-factor audit\", \"how compliant is this agent\", or \"evaluate this LLM app\". Also applies when comparing frameworks or planning agent improvements. Not for quick checklists \u2014 this performs deep per-factor codebase analysis with file-level evidence.
app-intents-code-reviewReviews App Intents code for intent structure, entities, shortcuts, and parameters. Use when reviewing code with import AppIntents, @AppIntent, AppEntity, AppShortcutsProvider, or @Parameter.
artifact-analysisUse when the user wants a cited, structured read of local documents and project knowledge. Triggers on: \"analyze these docs\", \"scan my project for context\", \"read the docs folder\", \"summarize what's in .beagle/concepts/\", \"extract context from docs/\", \"what's in this folder\", \"go read everything in X and tell me what's there\". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups (\"find this function\", \"search the repo\"), web research (use web-research), LLM-as-judge evaluation (use llm-judge), or document editing (use humanize-beagle). Produces a written scan plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.
axum-code-reviewReviews axum web framework code for routing patterns, extractor usage, middleware, state management, and error handling. Use when reviewing Rust code that uses axum, tower, or hyper for HTTP services. Covers axum 0.7+ patterns including State, Path, Query, Json extractors.
brainstorm-beagleUse when the user has a fuzzy idea and wants to shape it into a concrete project spec before planning or building. Triggers on: \"brainstorm this\", \"I have an idea for...\", \"help me think through this project\", \"what should I build\", \"spec this out\". Also catches vague feature descriptions needing structured questioning to clarify scope. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, review strategy docs, or run strategy interviews \u2014 produces a WHAT/WHY spec through dialogue, not a HOW plan.
bubbletea-code-reviewReviews BubbleTea TUI code for proper Elm architecture, model/update/view patterns, and Lipgloss styling. Use when reviewing terminal UI code using charmbracelet/bubbletea.
cloudkit-code-reviewReviews CloudKit code for container setup, record handling, subscriptions, and sharing patterns. Use when reviewing code with import CloudKit, CKContainer, CKRecord, CKShare, or CKSubscription.
combine-code-reviewReviews Combine framework code for memory leaks, operator misuse, and error handling. Use when reviewing code with import Combine, AnyPublisher, @Published, PassthroughSubject, or CurrentValueSubject.