본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

swift-code-review

Reviews Swift code for concurrency safety, error handling, memory management, and common mistakes. Use when reviewing .swift files for async/await patterns, actor isolation, Sendable conformance, or general Swift best practices.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle
설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(5)

  • SKILL.md4.3 KB
  • references/common-mistakes.md3.7 KB
  • references/concurrency.md3.7 KB
  • references/error-handling.md3.6 KB
  • references/observable.md3.7 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Swift Code Review

Review Workflow

Follow this sequence in order. Do not emit findings until every Pass below is satisfied.

  1. Swift / toolchain baseline — Establish language and tooling context: Package.swift // swift-tools-version and any per-target Swift language version or swiftSettings in the manifest; for Xcode, SWIFT_VERSION (or equivalent) in project or target build settings; note if review is single-file only.
    Pass: You state a concrete Swift language version or mode (e.g. Swift 6 language mode, tools 5.10) before advice that depends on strict concurrency, migration-only syntax, or SDK availability.

  2. Read surrounding code — For each changed .swift file, read the full enclosing type, function, method, or property that contains the edits, not only the diff hunk.
    Pass: At least one full enclosing symbol (type or member) containing the change was read per changed file.

  3. Scope the checklist — Using Quick Reference, decide which Review Checklist rows and references apply; open those reference files; skip rows clearly unrelated to the diff.
    Pass: The review (or working notes) lists which checklist areas you applied, or marks areas N/A with a one-line reason tied to the diff (e.g. “no SwiftUI / @Observable in change”).

  4. Pre-report verification — Load and follow review-verification-protocol.
    Pass: That skill’s Hard gates (sequenced) are satisfied for each finding you will report (full symbol read, usage search before “unused”, caller checked before “missing handling”, severity calibrated, [FILE:LINE] proof).

Hard gates (same sequence, shorter)

StepObjective pass condition
1Swift version/mode (or explicit single-file limitation) recorded before version- or SDK-gated advice.
2Full enclosing symbol read per changed file, not diff-only.
3Checklist areas + references listed or N/A with diff-tied reason.
4review-verification-protocol completed for every reported issue.

Output format

Report findings as:

[FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE
Severity: Critical | Major | Minor | Informational
Description of the issue and why it matters.

Quick Reference

Issue TypeReference
async/await, actors, Sendable, Taskreferences/concurrency.md
@Observable, @ObservationIgnored, @Bindablereferences/observable.md
throws, Result, try?, typed throwsreferences/error-handling.md
Force unwraps, retain cycles, namingreferences/common-mistakes.md

Review Checklist

  • No force unwraps (!) on runtime data (network, user input, files)
  • Closures stored as properties use [weak self]
  • Delegate properties are weak
  • Independent async operations use async let or TaskGroup
  • Long-running Tasks check Task.isCancelled
  • Actors have mutable state to protect (no stateless actors)
  • Sendable types are truly thread-safe (beware @unchecked)
  • Errors handled explicitly (no empty catch blocks)
  • Custom errors conform to LocalizedError with descriptive messages
  • Nested @Observable objects are also marked @Observable
  • @Bindable used for two-way bindings to Observable objects

When to Load References

  • Reviewing async/await, actors, or TaskGroups → concurrency.md
  • Reviewing @Observable or SwiftUI state → observable.md
  • Reviewing error handling or throws → error-handling.md
  • General Swift review → common-mistakes.md

Review Questions

  1. Are async operations that could run concurrently using async let?
  2. Could actor state change across suspension points (reentrancy bug)?
  3. Is @unchecked Sendable backed by actual synchronization?
  4. Are errors logged and presented with helpful context?
  5. Could any closure or delegate create a retain cycle?

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

adr-decision-extraction

무료

Use when you need to mine a conversation, session transcript, or design discussion for architectural decisions before writing ADRs. Identifies problem-solution pairs, trade-off debates, technology choices, and explicit "[ADR]" tags. Triggers on "what decisions did we make", "extract decisions from this chat", "find the choices in our discussion", or "summarize architectural decisions". Also useful after long planning sessions to capture decisions that were made implicitly. Does NOT write ADR documents — use adr-writing or write-adr for that.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

adr-writing

무료

Use when writing or formatting an ADR document using the MADR template, applying Definition of Done (E.C.A.D.R.) criteria, or verifying ADR completeness. Triggers on "write the ADR", "format as MADR", "check ADR quality", "mark gaps in ADR". Also triggers when a decision has been extracted and needs to become a document. Does NOT extract decisions from conversations (use adr-decision-extraction) or orchestrate the full extract-confirm-write workflow (use write-adr).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

agent-architecture-analysis

무료

Use when auditing an agent codebase against the 12-Factor Agents methodology, reviewing LLM-powered system architecture, or assessing agentic app compliance. Triggers on "analyze agent architecture", "12-factor audit", "how compliant is this agent", or "evaluate this LLM app". Also applies when comparing frameworks or planning agent improvements. Not for quick checklists — this performs deep per-factor codebase analysis with file-level evidence.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

ai-elements

무료

Vercel AI Elements for workflow UI components. Use when building chat interfaces, displaying tool execution, showing reasoning/thinking, or creating job queues. Triggers on ai-elements, Queue, Confirmation, Tool, Reasoning, Shimmer, Loader, Message, Conversation, PromptInput.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

app-intents-code-review

무료

Reviews App Intents code for intent structure, entities, shortcuts, and parameters. Use when reviewing code with import AppIntents, @AppIntent, AppEntity, AppShortcutsProvider, or @Parameter.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

artifact-analysis

무료

Use when the user wants a cited, structured read of local documents and project knowledge. Triggers on: "analyze these docs", "scan my project for context", "read the docs folder", "summarize what's in .beagle/concepts/", "extract context from docs/", "what's in this folder", "go read everything in X and tell me what's there". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), web research (use web-research), LLM-as-judge evaluation (use llm-judge), or document editing (use humanize-beagle). Produces a written scan plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

existential-birds/beagle842026년 9월 16일 업데이트

existential-birds의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고