Menu
Le prompt qui vérifie d'abord la source est sélectionné par défaut. Vous pouvez passer à une commande directe ou télécharger une copie locale.
Lisez SKILL.md et les fichiers associés affichés par SkillsMP avant de décider de l'installer.
Basé sur la classification professionnelle SOC
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
npx skills add https://github.com/existential-birds/beagle --skill swift-testing-code-reviewLa commande reste sur une seule ligne. Faites défiler horizontalement pour la vérifier avant de la copier.
Vous préférez une copie locale ? Téléchargez les fichiers actuellement disponibles dans SkillsMP.
Affichage de SKILL.md
Use when you need a bite-sized, TDD-driven implementation plan but do NOT have a brainstorm-beagle spec to plan against. quick-plan reconstructs intent from the current conversation, fans out domain-expert exploration subagents across the codebase, and synthesizes the same plan format write-plan produces — without requiring `.beagle/concepts/<slug>/spec.md`. Triggers on: "quick plan", "plan this out", "plan what we just discussed", "turn this into an implementation plan", "plan this without a spec", "I don't have a spec, just plan it", "write-plan but no spec". Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants an implementation or TDD plan and there is no spec to plan against — even if they just say "plan it" after discussing a feature. Writes to `.beagle/plans/<slug>/plan.md`. If a finalized spec already exists at `.beagle/concepts/<slug>/spec.md`, prefer write-plan. Does NOT brainstorm specs, write code, or execute the plan — produces the plan document (and an optional handoff prompt) only.
Use 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 — produces a WHAT/WHY spec through dialogue, not a HOW plan.
Use as the follow-up to brainstorm-beagle when a spec has an Open Questions section (or quietly carries latent gaps) that need closing before planning or implementation can begin. Triggers on: "resolve the open questions", "close the gaps in this spec", "research the open items", "finalize my spec", "make this spec implementation-ready", "answer the TBDs". Also triggers whenever the user points at a brainstorm-beagle spec and asks for research, proposals, or answers to unresolved items. Orchestrates parallel research subagents when available (falls back to inline sequential research otherwise), proposes answers one at a time for user approval, then rewrites the spec in place so it arrives at planning with no known gaps. Does NOT write code, design implementation, or create plans — it only produces a complete spec.
| name | swift-testing-code-review |
| description | Reviews Swift Testing code for proper use of |
Complete in order before recording Swift Testing review findings. Stack with review-verification-protocol for universal review rules.
.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.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).[FILE:LINE] evidence. If you report zero issues, state Protocol applied; no Swift Testing issues (or equivalent) in the review summary.| 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 |
#expect (not pre-computed booleans)#require used only for preconditions, #expect for assertions(any Error).self)zip() (not Cartesian product)confirmation(expectedCount:)withCheckedContinuation, not confirmation.serialized applied only where necessary (shared resources)@Test functions#expect lose diagnostic context?#require stopping tests prematurely instead of revealing all failures?zip() silently drop test cases due to unequal array lengths?confirmation?