AD ios-bootstrap-testflight
Scaffold a native iOS app (SwiftUI, no dependencies) from nothing, run it in the Simulator, and archive + upload it to TestFlight entirely from the command line. Bundles working scripts for icon generation, simulator run, and signed upload via the App Store Connect API. Use this whenever the user wants to build, run, ship, or debug an iOS/iPhone/iPad app, mentions Xcode, SwiftUI, .xcodeproj, xcodebuild, simctl, provisioning, code signing, App Store Connect, TestFlight, archiving, or "get this on my phone" — and also when an existing iOS build is failing on icons, signing, teams, destinations, or duplicate build numbers.
Promises to scaffold a native iOS app from scratch in SwiftUI, run it in Simulator, and ship to TestFlight entirely via command line. Includes scripts for icon generation, simulator launch, and signed upload through App Store Connect API.
Grade A with quality score 91 and safety 100. No critical errors, linter passes. Nine files, three working scripts. Covers the full pipeline from xcodebuild to archive—activates on mentions of Xcode, SwiftUI, provisioning, code signing, and when builds fail on icons or signing.
Process score 46 means scripts need manual setup for your team ID and bundle identifier. TestFlight upload via API instead of Xcode saves time on repeated builds. Install if you ship iOS regularly and want to eliminate the terminal grind.
Scaffold a native iOS app (SwiftUI, no dependencies) from nothing, run it in the Simulator, and archive + upload it to TestFlight entirely from the command…
As a process D 46/100 · Unfinished process — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 46/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 75Steps. 3 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 589 tokens
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 627: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 5 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 3 items
- +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (4 of 4)
- +3All 3 scripts are documented
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 91.