jbvc/swift-protocol-di-testing
Protocol-based dependency injection for testable Swift code — mock file system, network, and external APIs using focused protocols and Swift Testing.
74
74%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
57%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
The description establishes a clear niche around protocol-based dependency injection in Swift with good distinctiveness, but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and could benefit from more natural user-facing keywords. It communicates the domain well but doesn't fully guide Claude on when to select this skill.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user wants to make Swift code more testable, needs to mock dependencies, or asks about dependency injection patterns in Swift.'
Include additional natural trigger terms users might say, such as 'unit testing', 'test doubles', 'stubbing', 'testability', 'DI pattern', or 'isolate dependencies'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (dependency injection in Swift) and some actions (mock file system, network, external APIs), but doesn't list comprehensive concrete actions like 'create protocols', 'inject dependencies', 'write test doubles', etc. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (protocol-based dependency injection, mocking file system/network/APIs) but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant keywords like 'dependency injection', 'mock', 'protocols', 'Swift Testing', but misses common user variations like 'unit testing', 'testability', 'test doubles', 'DI', 'stubbing', or 'faking'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of Swift, protocol-based dependency injection, and Swift Testing creates a clear niche that is unlikely to conflict with other skills — it's specific to a particular testing pattern in a particular language. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a solid, actionable skill with excellent executable code examples covering the full protocol-based DI pattern in Swift. Its main weaknesses are some redundancy (duplicate 'when to use' sections, best practices restating what code shows) and the lack of progressive disclosure for what is a moderately long skill file. The workflow is clear and well-sequenced for a design pattern skill.
Suggestions
Remove the duplicate 'When to Use' section at the bottom since 'When to Activate' already covers the same triggers.
Trim best practices that merely restate what the code examples already demonstrate (e.g., 'Default parameters: Let production code use real implementations by default' is shown explicitly in step 4).
Consider splitting advanced topics (network mocking, iCloud-specific patterns, complex mock configurations) into a referenced companion file to improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient with good code examples, but has some redundancy: 'When to Activate' and 'When to Use' sections are nearly identical, and some best practices restate what the code already demonstrates (e.g., default parameters pattern is shown and then explained again). | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready Swift code for every step of the pattern — protocol definitions, production implementations, mock implementations, dependency injection with default parameters, and complete test examples using Swift Testing framework. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step numbered workflow is clearly sequenced and logically builds from protocol definition through production implementation, mock creation, injection, and testing. Since this is a design pattern rather than a destructive/batch operation, validation checkpoints are not required, and the progression is unambiguous. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear headers and a logical progression, but it's a fairly long monolithic file (~150 lines of content) with no references to external files for advanced topics like network mocking, more complex mock patterns, or additional examples that could be split out. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
Reviewed
Table of Contents