affaan-m/ECC

click-path-audit

Trace every user-facing button/touchpoint through its full state change sequence to find bugs where functions individually work but cancel each other out, produce wrong final state, or leave the UI in an inconsistent state. Use when: systematic debugging found no bugs but users report broken buttons, or after any major refactor touching shared state stores.

83Collecting
See how to use itView GitHub source
npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "skills/click-path-audit"
Automated source guide

Source checked Jul 28, 2026·Refresh due Oct 26, 2026

Reorganized from the pinned upstream SKILL.md

Turn click-path-audit's source instructions into a guide you can follow

According to the pinned SKILL.md from affaan-m/ECC: Find bugs that static code reading misses: state interaction side effects, race conditions between sequential calls, and handlers that silently undo each other.

npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "skills/click-path-audit"
Check the pinned source

Best fit

  • After systematic debugging finds "no bugs" but users report broken UI
  • After modifying any Zustand store action (check all callers)
  • After any refactor that touches shared state

Bring this context

  • A concrete task that matches the documented purpose of click-path-audit.
  • The files, examples, or context the task depends on.
  • Your constraints, target environment, and definition of done.

Expected outputs

  • The button has an onClick handler (not dead)
  • Both functions exist (no missing wiring)
  • Neither function crashes (no runtime error)

Key source sections

Read click-path-audit through these 5 source sections

Sections are extracted automatically from the pinned SKILL.md and link back to the source.

01

Step 1: Map State Stores

Before auditing any touchpoint, build a side-effect map of every state store action:

SKILL.md · Step 1: Map State Stores
Before auditing any touchpoint, build a side-effect map of every state store action:This is the critical reference. The "New Email" bug was invisible without knowing that selectThread resets composeMode.
02

Step 2: Audit Each Touchpoint

For each button/toggle/form submit in the target area:

SKILL.md · Step 2: Audit Each Touchpoint
For each button/toggle/form submit in the target area:Check each of these bug patterns:
03

Step 3: Report

Review the “Step 3: Report” section in the pinned source before continuing.

SKILL.md · Step 3: Report
Review and apply the “Step 3: Report” source section.
04

The Problem This Solves

Traditional debugging checks: - Does the function exist? (missing wiring) - Does it crash? (runtime errors) - Does it return the right type? (data flow)

SKILL.md · The Problem This Solves
Does the function exist? (missing wiring)Does it crash? (runtime errors)Does it return the right type? (data flow)
05

How It Works

For EVERY interactive touchpoint in the target area:

SKILL.md · How It Works
For EVERY interactive touchpoint in the target area:

SkillSignal prompt templates

Provide the task, context, and acceptance criteria

These prompts were written by SkillSignal from the source structure; they are not upstream text.

Task-start prompt

Confirm source fit, inputs, and outputs before acting.

Use click-path-audit to help me with: [specific task]. Context: [files, data, or background]. Constraints: [environment, scope, and prohibited actions]. Before acting, check the pinned SKILL.md and explain which sections apply, what inputs are still missing, and what you will deliver.

Source-guided execution

Make the Agent explicitly follow the key extracted sections.

Apply the pinned click-path-audit source to [task]. Pay particular attention to these source sections: “Step 1: Map State Stores”, “Step 2: Audit Each Touchpoint”, “Step 3: Report”, “The Problem This Solves”, “How It Works”. Preserve the important decision at each step. Mark facts not covered by the source as “needs confirmation” instead of inventing them. Then verify the result against my acceptance criteria: [criteria].

Result-review prompt

Check omissions, permissions, and source drift before delivery.

Review the current click-path-audit result: (1) does it satisfy the original task; (2) were any applicable steps or limits in the pinned SKILL.md missed; (3) did it perform any unauthorized file, command, network, or data action; and (4) which conclusions remain unverified? List issues first, then fix only what the source or user authorization supports.

Output checklist

Verify each item before delivery

The task matches the purpose documented in the SKILL.md.

The source section “Step 1: Map State Stores” has been checked.

The source section “Step 2: Audit Each Touchpoint” has been checked.

The source section “Step 3: Report” has been checked.

The source section “The Problem This Solves” has been checked.

Inputs, constraints, and acceptance criteria are explicit.

Unverified facts, compatibility, and outcome claims are clearly marked.

Any file, command, network, or data action has been reviewed.

Choose a different workflow

When another Skill is the better fit

click-path-audit

追踪每个面向用户的按钮/触点的完整状态变化序列,以发现功能单独工作但相互抵消、产生错误最终状态或使UI处于不一致状态的错误。适用于:系统调试未发现错误但用户报告按钮失效,或在任何涉及共享状态存储的重大重构之后。

A separate implementation from affaan-m/ECC; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.

Open source detail

click-path-audit

ユーザー向けボタン/タッチポイントを完全な状態変更シーケンスを通して追跡し、機能が個別に機能するが互いにキャンセルされたり、間違った最終状態を生成したり、UIを矛盾した状態にしたままにするバグを見つけます。次の場合に使用します:体系的なデバッグがバグを見つけたが、ユーザーは壊れたボタンを報告する場合、または共有状態ストアに触れる主要なリファクター後。

A separate implementation from affaan-m/ECC; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.

Open source detail

ab-testing

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program

A separate implementation from coreyhaines31/marketingskills; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.

Open source detail

FAQ

What does click-path-audit do?

Find bugs that static code reading misses: state interaction side effects, race conditions between sequential calls, and handlers that silently undo each other.

How do I start using click-path-audit?

The catalog detected this source-specific install command: npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "skills/click-path-audit". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.

Which Agent platforms does it declare?

No dedicated Agent platform is declared in the pinned source record.

Repository stars
234,327
Repository forks
35,711
Quality
83/100
Source repository last pushed

Quality breakdown

Based on traceable docs and repository signals; stars are not treated as quality.

83/100
Documentation28/30
Specificity23/25
Maintenance20/20
Trust signals12/25

Compare before choosing

Related Agent Skills and source variants

These links are selected from shared tasks, functions, stacks, platforms, and same-name variants. Compare the source owner, documentation, permissions, and maintenance signals.

click-path-audit by affaan-m

追踪每个面向用户的按钮/触点的完整状态变化序列,以发现功能单独工作但相互抵消、产生错误最终状态或使UI处于不一致状态的错误。适用于:系统调试未发现错误但用户报告按钮失效,或在任何涉及共享状态存储的重大重构之后。

click-path-audit by affaan-m

ユーザー向けボタン/タッチポイントを完全な状態変更シーケンスを通して追跡し、機能が個別に機能するが互いにキャンセルされたり、間違った最終状態を生成したり、UIを矛盾した状態にしたままにするバグを見つけます。次の場合に使用します:体系的なデバッグがバグを見つけたが、ユーザーは壊れたボタンを報告する場合、または共有状態ストアに触れる主要なリファクター後。

ab-testing by coreyhaines31

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program

churn-prevention by coreyhaines31

When the user wants to reduce churn, build cancellation flows, set up save offers, recover failed payments, or implement retention strategies. Also use when the user mentions 'churn,' 'cancel flow,' 'offboarding,' 'save offer,' 'dunning,' 'failed payment recovery,' 'win-back,' 'retention,' 'exit survey,' 'pause subscription,' 'involuntary churn,' 'people keep canceling,' 'churn rate is too high,' 'how do I keep users,' or 'customers are leaving.' Use this whenever someone is losing subscribers o

design-review by event4u-app

Use when the user says "review the design", "check the UI", or wants a comprehensive UI/UX review. Uses a 7-phase methodology covering interaction, responsiveness, accessibility, and more.

View original Skill.mdThis page is parsed directly from the repository SKILL.md without editorial rewriting. Collected: Jul 28, 2026 · about 3 min

/click-path-audit — Behavioural Flow Audit

Find bugs that static code reading misses: state interaction side effects, race conditions between sequential calls, and handlers that silently undo each other.

The Problem This Solves

Traditional debugging checks:

  • Does the function exist? (missing wiring)
  • Does it crash? (runtime errors)
  • Does it return the right type? (data flow)

But it does NOT check:

  • Does the final UI state match what the button label promises?
  • Does function B silently undo what function A just did?
  • Does shared state (Zustand/Redux/context) have side effects that cancel the intended action?

Real example: A "New Email" button called setComposeMode(true) then selectThread(null). Both worked individually. But selectThread had a side effect resetting composeMode: false. The button did nothing. 54 bugs were found by systematic debugging — this one was missed.


How It Works

For EVERY interactive touchpoint in the target area:

1. IDENTIFY the handler (onClick, onSubmit, onChange, etc.)
2. TRACE every function call in the handler, IN ORDER
3. For EACH function call:
   a. What state does it READ?
   b. What state does it WRITE?
   c. Does it have SIDE EFFECTS on shared state?
   d. Does it reset/clear any state as a side effect?
4. CHECK: Does any later call UNDO a state change from an earlier call?
5. CHECK: Is the FINAL state what the user expects from the button label?
6. CHECK: Are there race conditions (async calls that resolve in wrong order)?

Execution Steps

Step 1: Map State Stores

Before auditing any touchpoint, build a side-effect map of every state store action:

For each Zustand store / React context in scope:
  For each action/setter:
    - What fields does it set?
    - Does it RESET other fields as a side effect?
    - Document: actionName → {sets: [...], resets: [...]}

This is the critical reference. The "New Email" bug was invisible without knowing that selectThread resets composeMode.

Output format:

STORE: emailStore
  setComposeMode(bool) → sets: {composeMode}
  selectThread(thread|null) → sets: {selectedThread, selectedThreadId, messages, drafts, selectedDraft, summary} RESETS: {composeMode: false, composeData: null, redraftOpen: false}
  setDraftGenerating(bool) → sets: {draftGenerating}
  ...

DANGEROUS RESETS (actions that clear state they don't own):
  selectThread → resets composeMode (owned by setComposeMode)
  reset → resets everything

Step 2: Audit Each Touchpoint

For each button/toggle/form submit in the target area:

TOUCHPOINT: [Button label] in [Component:line]
  HANDLER: onClick → {
    call 1: functionA() → sets {X: true}
    call 2: functionB() → sets {Y: null} RESETS {X: false}  ← CONFLICT
  }
  EXPECTED: User sees [description of what button label promises]
  ACTUAL: X is false because functionB reset it
  VERDICT: BUG — [description]

Check each of these bug patterns:

Pattern 1: Sequential Undo

handler() {
  setState_A(true)     // sets X = true
  setState_B(null)     // side effect: resets X = false
}
// Result: X is false. First call was pointless.

Pattern 2: Async Race

handler() {
  fetchA().then(() => setState({ loading: false }))
  fetchB().then(() => setState({ loading: true }))
}
// Result: final loading state depends on which resolves first

Pattern 3: Stale Closure

const [count, setCount] = useState(0)
const handler = useCallback(() => {
  setCount(count + 1)  // captures stale count
  setCount(count + 1)  // same stale count — increments by 1, not 2
}, [count])

Pattern 4: Missing State Transition

// Button says "Save" but handler only validates, never actually saves
// Button says "Delete" but handler sets a flag without calling the API
// Button says "Send" but the API endpoint is removed/broken

Pattern 5: Conditional Dead Path

handler() {
  if (someState) {        // someState is ALWAYS false at this point
    doTheActualThing()    // never reached
  }
}

Pattern 6: useEffect Interference

// Button sets stateX = true
// A useEffect watches stateX and resets it to false
// User sees nothing happen

Step 3: Report

For each bug found:

CLICK-PATH-NNN: [severity: CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]
  Touchpoint: [Button label] in [file:line]
  Pattern: [Sequential Undo / Async Race / Stale Closure / Missing Transition / Dead Path / useEffect Interference]
  Handler: [function name or inline]
  Trace:
    1. [call] → sets {field: value}
    2. [call] → RESETS {field: value}  ← CONFLICT
  Expected: [what user expects]
  Actual: [what actually happens]
  Fix: [specific fix]

Scope Control

This audit is expensive. Scope it appropriately:

  • Full app audit: Use when launching or after major refactor. Launch parallel agents per page.
  • Single page audit: Use after building a new page or after a user reports a broken button.
  • Store-focused audit: Use after modifying a Zustand store — audit all consumers of the changed actions.

Recommended agent split for full app:

Agent 1: Map ALL state stores (Step 1) — this is shared context for all other agents
Agent 2: Dashboard (Tasks, Notes, Journal, Ideas)
Agent 3: Chat (DanteChatColumn, JustChatPage)
Agent 4: Emails (ThreadList, DraftArea, EmailsPage)
Agent 5: Projects (ProjectsPage, ProjectOverviewTab, NewProjectWizard)
Agent 6: CRM (all sub-tabs)
Agent 7: Profile, Settings, Vault, Notifications
Agent 8: Management Suite (all pages)

Agent 1 MUST complete first. Its output is input for all other agents.


When to Use

  • After systematic debugging finds "no bugs" but users report broken UI
  • After modifying any Zustand store action (check all callers)
  • After any refactor that touches shared state
  • Before release, on critical user flows
  • When a button "does nothing" — this is THE tool for that

When NOT to Use

  • For API-level bugs (wrong response shape, missing endpoint) — use systematic-debugging
  • For styling/layout issues — visual inspection
  • For performance issues — profiling tools

Integration with Other Skills

  • Run AFTER /superpowers:systematic-debugging (which finds the other 54 bug types)
  • Run BEFORE /superpowers:verification-before-completion (which verifies fixes work)
  • Feeds into /superpowers:test-driven-development — every bug found here should get a test

Example: The Bug That Inspired This Skill

ThreadList.tsx "New Email" button:

onClick={() => {
  useEmailStore.getState().setComposeMode(true)   // ✓ sets composeMode = true
  useEmailStore.getState().selectThread(null)      // ✗ RESETS composeMode = false
}}

Store definition:

selectThread: (thread) => set({
  selectedThread: thread,
  selectedThreadId: thread?.id ?? null,
  messages: [],
  drafts: [],
  selectedDraft: null,
  summary: null,
  composeMode: false,     // ← THIS silent reset killed the button
  composeData: null,
  redraftOpen: false,
})

Systematic debugging missed it because:

  • The button has an onClick handler (not dead)
  • Both functions exist (no missing wiring)
  • Neither function crashes (no runtime error)
  • The data types are correct (no type mismatch)

Click-path audit catches it because:

  • Step 1 maps selectThread resets composeMode
  • Step 2 traces the handler: call 1 sets true, call 2 resets false
  • Verdict: Sequential Undo — final state contradicts button intent
Source repo
affaan-m/ECC
Skill path
skills/click-path-audit/SKILL.md
Commit SHA
4e973d3eaf92
Repository license
MIT
Data collected