A UI test went red in the same run that adopted three new APIs. The one
touching that screen was reverted; the test still failed. A modifier
order was corrected; still failed. Simulator data was wiped; still
failed. Running it against a clean checkout — which should have been the
first move, not the fourth — it failed there too, with none of the work
present.
The scrolling entry had already been rewritten to explain the fault in
confident detail. That write-up was fiction, so it now says what actually
happened: the API was convicted on circumstance and remains unproven
here, and the one claim that survives is about its two-way binding
costing invalidations.
xcode-practice gets the general lesson, since it will outlive this
particular test: stash and rerun before reasoning about which edit did
it, and a note recording a false cause is worse than no note, because
the next person believes it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Skills have been living inside one app's repository, which means the next
Xcode project starts without them and a copy is the only way to share.
A marketplace makes them installable once at user scope.
Two kinds of knowledge, handled differently. What Apple ships with Xcode
stays Apple's: this repository carries a script that exports it from the
locally installed Xcode rather than a copy, so nobody redistributes
pre-release material and everyone's guidance matches their own SDK.
What we learned by shipping goes in the skill, and only if it burned us —
the file writes hidden in view bodies, the blobs that froze the main
thread, the watch target that quietly stopped compiling, the test summary
that reads as zero tests when eighty-four passed. Each of those cost real
time twice before being written down.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
TomUviandClaude Opus 5