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
affaan-m/ECC
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.
npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "skills/click-path-audit"Source checked Jul 28, 2026·Refresh due Oct 26, 2026
Reorganized from the pinned upstream SKILL.md
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"Best fit
Bring this context
Expected outputs
Key source sections
Sections are extracted automatically from the pinned SKILL.md and link back to the source.
Before auditing any touchpoint, build a side-effect map of every state store action:
For each button/toggle/form submit in the target area:
Review the “Step 3: Report” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Traditional debugging checks: - Does the function exist? (missing wiring) - Does it crash? (runtime errors) - Does it return the right type? (data flow)
For EVERY interactive touchpoint in the target area:
SkillSignal prompt templates
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
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
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 detailWhen 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 detailFAQ
Find bugs that static code reading misses: state interaction side effects, race conditions between sequential calls, and handlers that silently undo each other.
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.
No dedicated Agent platform is declared in the pinned source record.
Quality breakdown
Based on traceable docs and repository signals; stars are not treated as quality.
Compare before choosing
These links are selected from shared tasks, functions, stacks, platforms, and same-name variants. Compare the source owner, documentation, permissions, and maintenance signals.
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。
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。
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
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
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.
Find bugs that static code reading misses: state interaction side effects, race conditions between sequential calls, and handlers that silently undo each other.
Traditional debugging checks:
But it does NOT check:
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.
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)?
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
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:
handler() {
setState_A(true) // sets X = true
setState_B(null) // side effect: resets X = false
}
// Result: X is false. First call was pointless.
handler() {
fetchA().then(() => setState({ loading: false }))
fetchB().then(() => setState({ loading: true }))
}
// Result: final loading state depends on which resolves first
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])
// 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
handler() {
if (someState) { // someState is ALWAYS false at this point
doTheActualThing() // never reached
}
}
// Button sets stateX = true
// A useEffect watches stateX and resets it to false
// User sees nothing happen
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]
This audit is expensive. Scope it appropriately:
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.
/superpowers:systematic-debugging (which finds the other 54 bug types)/superpowers:verification-before-completion (which verifies fixes work)/superpowers:test-driven-development — every bug found here should get a testThreadList.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:
Click-path audit catches it because:
selectThread resets composeMode