swift-testing-code-review
by anderskev
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.
安装
claude skill add --url https://github.com/openclaw/skills文档
Swift Testing Code Review
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) -
#requireused only for preconditions,#expectfor 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, notconfirmation -
.serializedapplied only where necessary (shared resources) - Sibling serialized suites nested under parent if mutually exclusive
- No assumption of state persistence between
@Testfunctions - 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
- Could pre-computed booleans in
#expectlose diagnostic context? - Is
#requirestopping tests prematurely instead of revealing all failures? - Are multi-argument parameterized tests creating accidental Cartesian products?
- Could
zip()silently drop test cases due to unequal array lengths? - Are completion handlers incorrectly tested with
confirmation?
相关 Skills
前端设计
by anthropics
面向组件、页面、海报和 Web 应用开发,按鲜明视觉方向生成可直接落地的前端代码与高质感 UI,适合做 landing page、Dashboard 或美化现有界面,避开千篇一律的 AI 审美。
✎ 想把页面做得既能上线又有设计感,就用前端设计:组件到整站都能产出,难得的是能避开千篇一律的 AI 味。
网页构建器
by anthropics
面向复杂 claude.ai HTML artifact 开发,快速初始化 React + Tailwind CSS + shadcn/ui 项目并打包为单文件 HTML,适合需要状态管理、路由或多组件交互的页面。
✎ 在 claude.ai 里做复杂网页 Artifact 很省心,多组件、状态和路由都能顺手搭起来,React、Tailwind 与 shadcn/ui 组合效率高、成品也更精致。
网页应用测试
by anthropics
用 Playwright 为本地 Web 应用编写自动化测试,支持启动开发服务器、校验前端交互、排查 UI 异常、抓取截图与浏览器日志,适合调试动态页面和回归验证。
✎ 借助 Playwright 一站式验证本地 Web 应用前端功能,调 UI 时还能同步查看日志和截图,定位问题更快。
相关 MCP 服务
GitHub
编辑精选by GitHub
GitHub 是 MCP 官方参考服务器,让 Claude 直接读写你的代码仓库和 Issues。
✎ 这个参考服务器解决了开发者想让 AI 安全访问 GitHub 数据的问题,适合需要自动化代码审查或 Issue 管理的团队。但注意它只是参考实现,生产环境得自己加固安全。
Context7 文档查询
编辑精选by Context7
Context7 是实时拉取最新文档和代码示例的智能助手,让你告别过时资料。
✎ 它能解决开发者查找文档时信息滞后的问题,特别适合快速上手新库或跟进更新。不过,依赖外部源可能导致偶尔的数据延迟,建议结合官方文档使用。
by tldraw
tldraw 是让 AI 助手直接在无限画布上绘图和协作的 MCP 服务器。
✎ 这解决了 AI 只能输出文本、无法视觉化协作的痛点——想象让 Claude 帮你画流程图或白板讨论。最适合需要快速原型设计或头脑风暴的开发者。不过,目前它只是个基础连接器,你得自己搭建画布应用才能发挥全部潜力。