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 existential-birds/beagle --skill swift-testing-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/existential-birds/beagleWrote 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/existential-birds/beagle/swift-testing-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/existential-birds/beagle/swift-testing-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/swift-testing-code-review/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/existential-birds/beagle/swift-testing-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/existential-birds/beagle/swift-testing-code-review.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 | $0.00013 | $0.00760 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00304 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00152 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
swift-testing-code-review 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 1mo 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 — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Swift Testing Code Review
Hard gates
Complete in order before recording Swift Testing review findings. Stack with review-verification-protocol for universal review rules.
- Scope: You have an explicit list of
.swiftpaths 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. - Swift Testing surface: For each path you treat as Swift Testing code, confirm
import Testingor@Test/#expect/#require/@Suiteappears 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). - Evidence + protocol: Load review-verification-protocol before asserting any issue. Pass: Each finding meets that skill’s anchor rules; any violated Review Checklist item cites
[FILE:LINE]evidence. If you report zero issues, stateProtocol 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 |
| @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
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 53 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 98dbdb79c9c2
swift-testing-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository existential-birds/beagle (82 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 760 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-16.
Other skills, from other repositories
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general improvement suggestions.
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
semgrep-rule-variant-creator
Creates language variants of existing Semgrep rules. Use when porting a Semgrep rule to specified target languages. Takes an existing rule and target languages as input, produces independent rule+test directories for each language.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.