Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add cometchat/cometchat-skills --skill cometchat-ios-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cometchat/cometchat-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/cometchat/cometchat-skills/cometchat-ios-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cometchat/cometchat-skills/cometchat-ios-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cometchat/cometchat-skills/cometchat-ios-testing/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cometchat/cometchat-skills/cometchat-ios-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cometchat/cometchat-skills/cometchat-ios-testing.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00095 | $0.01117 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00447 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00223 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
cometchat-ios-testing scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 27d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Ground truth:
CometChatUIKitSwift5.1.22 +CometChatSDK4.1.7 (symbols verified vscatalogs/ios-v5.json); signatures FETCHED viacometchat-ios-core/references/docs-map.md. The iOS UI Kit docs have no dedicated testing page — this is the pack's own guidance (tracked DOCS GAP). The kit ships prebuilt view controllers/SwiftUI views; do not assert against their internal view hierarchy.
Companion skills (read first)
cometchat-ios-core— the init→login→render lifecycle and the credential flow these tests exercise.
Use this skill when
Adding tests around a CometChat iOS integration, or a "how do I test this" question. NOT part of a normal build — only when tests are explicitly requested (RULES.md → Verification scope).
Decide what you are testing
Test your code, not the kit. Three layers:
- Your logic (token fetch, UID mapping, view-model state, routing) →
XCTestin isolation, keep the SDK off the network. - Your wiring (the chat screen appears after init+login; the right IDs are passed) → a host-app test that drives the launch hook.
- The real round-trip (send → receive) → a thin
XCUITestagainst a test app, not a unit test.
Do not unit-test that the kit's message list renders — that is the kit's own surface.
Keep the SDK off the network in unit tests
Put your CometChat calls behind a protocol your view-models depend on, and inject a fake in tests:
protocol ChatAuthing { func login(authToken: String) async throws -> String } // returns uid
final class FakeChatAuth: ChatAuthing { func login(authToken: String) async throws -> String { "u1" } }
Test your token-fetch, error handling, and UID mapping against FakeChatAuth — no real CometChatUIKit.login, no network, no Auth Key in the test target. Injecting the real implementation only in the app keeps unit tests fast and hermetic.
The init→login gate in host-app tests
The chat screen mounts only after initFromSettings + login resolve (both async). A test that asserts immediately after presenting the screen races the gate — wait for a stable, YOUR-owned element (a title, an accessibility identifier you set), with an expectation/timeout, not a fixed sleep:
let list = app.otherElements["conversationsScreen"] // an identifier YOU set on your container
XCTAssertTrue(list.waitForExistence(timeout: 20))
Set accessibilityIdentifiers on your own containers so UI tests have stable anchors that survive kit updates.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 27d ago Changed · -319 lines · +14 tokens per session 4c9d1651b96d
- 1mo ago First seen · 377 lines · 81 tokens per session scan A 1b61de94723a
cometchat-ios-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository cometchat/cometchat-skills (150 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 95 tokens to every session and 1,117 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-runner
For a code change, pick the right test tier by change surface, run apc test with baseline diff, and report only NEW reds vs baseline back to the task's acceptance criterion. Separates envblocked from SUT red so a broken machine never fails the code.
designing-tests
Designs and implements testing strategies for any codebase. Use when adding tests, improving coverage, setting up testing infrastructure, debugging test failures, or when asked about unit tests, integration tests, or E2E testing.
backend/testing-guide
A guide for writing backend tests: small unit tests, tests that check connected parts such as an API and database, and end-to-end tests that follow a complete user flow.
mobiai-android-testing
Use when writing or running tests in an Android project — unit tests, UI tests, choosing the right framework and patterns.
qa/test-strategy
A testing strategy based on the testing pyramid: many small unit tests, fewer integration tests, and a smaller set of end-to-end tests that follow real user journeys. It also defines checks for security, boundaries, permissions, and business consistency.
testing
Use when writing or reviewing Flutter/Dart tests (unit, widget, golden), fixing flaky tests, adding coverage, or choosing between unit and widget tests.