tdg-personal/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.
63
63%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
32%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 identifies a clear technical domain (protocol-based DI in Swift for testing) but lacks explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...'), which significantly hurts completeness. The specificity could be improved by listing more concrete actions, and trigger terms could better cover natural user language variations like 'unit test', 'test doubles', or 'mocking dependencies'.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user wants to make Swift code testable, needs to mock dependencies, or asks about dependency injection patterns in Swift.'
Include more natural trigger term variations such as 'unit testing', 'test doubles', 'stubs', 'mocking dependencies', 'testability', and 'DI pattern'.
List more specific concrete actions, e.g., 'Defines focused protocols for dependencies, creates mock implementations for testing, injects test doubles via initializers or property wrappers.'
| 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'. The actions are somewhat implied rather than explicitly enumerated. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what (protocol-based dependency injection for mocking), but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause should cap completeness at 2, and since the 'what' is also somewhat vague, this scores a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant keywords like 'dependency injection', 'mock', 'protocols', 'Swift Testing', 'testable', but misses common user variations like 'unit testing', 'test doubles', 'stubs', 'DI', 'protocol-oriented programming', or 'XCTest'. A user asking about testing Swift code might not use the phrase 'protocol-based dependency injection'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of Swift + dependency injection + protocol-based + Swift Testing is fairly specific, but could overlap with general Swift testing skills, Swift architecture skills, or broader mocking/testing skills. The niche is identifiable but not sharply delineated. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 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 that clearly demonstrate the protocol-based DI pattern in Swift. The main weaknesses are minor 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 well-sequenced and the code quality is high.
Suggestions
Remove the duplicate 'When to Use' section at the bottom since 'When to Activate' already covers the same triggers.
Consider moving detailed mock implementations and test examples to a separate EXAMPLES.md file, keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview with the core pattern and links to details.
| 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 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. All code is copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step numbered workflow is clearly sequenced and logically builds from protocol definition through to testing. Each step has a clear purpose and concrete code. Since this is a design pattern (not a destructive/batch operation), validation checkpoints are not critical, and the testing step serves as the verification layer. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-structured with clear sections and headers, but it's a fairly long monolithic file (~150 lines of content) that could benefit from splitting detailed mock implementations or test examples into separate reference files. No external references are provided for advanced topics like network mocking or more complex scenarios. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
Reviewed
Table of Contents